Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[MADAM SPEAKER in the Chair]

PRIVATE BUSINESS

LONDON DOCKLANDS DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION BILL [Lords].(By Order.)

Order for consideration read.

To be considered on Thursday 7 July.

FEDERATION OF STREET TRADERS UNION (LONDON LOCAL AUTHORITIES ACT 1990) (AMENDMENT) BILL. (By Order.)

Order for Second Reading read.

To be read a Second time on Thursday 7 July.

FINAL REPORT OF THE MAY INQUIRY

Resolved,
That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, That she will be graciously pleased to give directions that there be laid before this House a Return of the Final Report of the Inquiry into the circumstances surrounding the convictions arising out of the bomb attacks in Guildford and Woolwich in 1974, by the Right honourable Sir John May.—[Mr. Howard.]

Oral Answers to Questions — TREASURY

Corporation Tax

Mr. Whittingdale: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what account he takes in setting the corporation tax rate in Britain of that of the United Kingdom's major competitors; and if he will make a statement.

The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Stephen Dorrell): My right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer pays careful attention to the corporation tax rates in the United Kingdom's major competitor countries. The United Kingdom's main rate of corporation tax is the lowest of any major industrial country.

Mr. Whittingdale: Will my hon. Friend confirm that not only do we have the lowest rate of corporation tax for larger firms of any country in the European Community, but our corporation tax regime for smaller firms is also the most generous in the whole of Europe? Is it not also true that the Labour party is pledged to increase the rate of tax on businesses and make them closer to the levels in other Community countries, which would increase business costs and destroy jobs?

Mr. Dorrell: My hon. Friend is right on each count. The socialist manifesto for the European elections made precisely the commitment to which he refers. My hon. Friend is also right to say that our corporation tax rates compare well with those elsewhere in the world. That is partly why we have such a successful record in attracting inward investment, which has created more than half a million jobs in Britain over the past 14 years.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: If everything is so wonderful, why do we have a trade deficit?

Mr. Dorrell: Part of the reason why we have falling unemployment, and inflation under better control than at any time for a quarter of a century, is that the Government have taken the decisions necessary to put economic disciplines in place. That is why the economic forecast published this week gives one of the best outlooks for the British economy in living memory.

Inflation

Mr. Pawsey: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the current rate of inflation in the United Kingdom; and what is the rate for France, Germany and Italy.

The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Anthony Nelson): Inflation in the United Kingdom is currently 2.6 per cent. That compares with 1.7 per cent. in France, 3 per cent. in Germany and 4.1 per cent. in Italy.

Mr. Pawsey: I thank my hon. Friend for that helpful reply. It is clear that the policies being pursued by my right hon. and hon. Friends in the Government have resulted in inflation falling significantly below the European Community average. Does my hon. Friend agree that low inflation is the foundation for economic growth and that economic growth equals more jobs and greater prosperity for all the British people?

Mr. Nelson: Yes, I agree. Our economic performance, not least on inflation, is the envy of the rest of Europe. Certainly the European Commission expects the United Kingdom to be the only country to combine stronger growth with low inflation both this year and next.

Interest Rates

Mr. Nigel Griffiths: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the current policy on interest rates.

Mr. Skinner: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what recent discussions he has had with the Governor of the Bank of England regarding interest rates.

The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr. Kenneth Clarke): The minutes of my discussions with the Governor which precede my decisions on interest rates are now published. I refer both hon. Members to the minutes published on 22 June.

Mr. Griffiths: If there is any confidence in the Chancellor's policies, why are longer-term interest rates in this country rising faster than those in Italy, America, Germany, France and other comparable countries?

Mr. Clarke: There has been some rise in long-term interest rates throughout the western world. In my opinion, that has happened because the markets have overreacted to fears of inflation in north America and across western


Europe. The best reaction that I can give is the one that I am giving—to introduce the most open system of monetary policy in the world, so that people can see that we are setting our monetary policy on a basis that will deliver the low inflation target to which the Government are committed. The exchanges a few moments ago made it clear that we are well on the way to delivering that.

Mr. Skinner: At the beginning of this year, the interest rate on 10-year bonds in Britain was just over 6 per cent. It is now almost 8½ per cent. That is a massive increase by any standards, and higher than that in most industrialised countries. Does that not mean that the next move in interest rates will be up and not down? That will mean more unemployment. We have more taxes at the end of this year and more taxes next year. The best advice that I can give the Chancellor is to take the Chief Secretary with him to the meetings with the Governor of the Bank of England because the Chief Secretary is telling a story in other parts of the world different from the one that the Chancellor is spreading here.

Mr. Clarke: Apparently, the Chief Secretary and I have to go to Spain and Germany respectively before anyone takes any notice of our speeches. Leaving that to one side, however, the fact is that we have the lowest short-term rates in this country since 1972. Since the beginning of this year, long-term rates have gone up, for the reasons I have just given. As the hon. Gentleman knows, however, they have come down again to the present level of about 8½ per cent., and they will stay down if we can make it clear to the markets that we have control of inflation, as we most undoubtedly have. We do not have a problem, because the fundamentals are more sound than they have been here for a generation. Indeed, I have just revised upwards my forecast for economic growth and revised downwards my forecast for inflation because we have the best combination of circumstances for the medium future that we have had for many years.

Sir Peter Tapsell: Will my right hon. and learned Friend continue to remind his advisers, especially those in the Bank of England, that the present weakness of the United States dollar against the Japanese yen and European currencies is not a cause for a fundamental reappraisal of our policy of trying to get lower short-term interest rates? The weakness results from the delay, caused by the Japanese financial year window-dressing—[Interruption.]

Madam Speaker: Order. A question, please.

Sir Peter Tapsell: Does my right hon. and learned Friend understand that the weakness results from the repatriation of Japanese yen on the sale of US Treasury bills, some of which funds are now being put into European investment instruments, because the Japanese expect European interest rates to continue to fall?

Mr. Clarke: I am sure that my hon. Friend and the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) will take that point forward in long conversations for the remainder of the afternoon. Our position in the exchange markets has been extremely steady. Our position is well appreciated abroad because we have the fundamentals right. I will continue to set British monetary policy on the basis of British conditions, looking at our money supply, our asset values and our exchange rates, and getting the balance right in

strengthening recovery which can be sustained because it is based on a low target for inflation. We are well on course for that at the moment.

Madam Speaker: After those long exchanges, I would like a direct question from Mr. Taylor.

Mr. Ian Taylor: I will endeavour to oblige, Madam Speaker. Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that stability in interest rates at the short end is entirely dependent on his maintaining the current fiscal balance to avoid there being a return of inflationary fears? That means not only a restraint on public expenditure, but a continuation of the current policy towards taxation.

Mr. Clarke: Yes, Madam Speaker.

Mr. Beith: To make that absolutely clear, does the Chancellor agree that the pressure to use higher interest rates to restrain inflation will be very much greater if, at a time when the economy is becoming more active, there is the expectation of tax cuts? Had he better not warn those of his hon. Friends, other than the hon. Member for Esher (Mr. Taylor), that the expectation of tax cuts could damage his chances of keeping interest rates down?

Mr. Clarke: The need for brevity has prevented me from being as expansive as I would have wished, both to my hon. Friend the Member for Esher (Mr. Taylor) and to the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith). There is a very great deal in what they say. That is why I keep reiterating my determination to deliver our fiscal policies and to return to this Government's agenda of tax cutting only when it is sensible to do so because we have public spending and public borrowing under control through the prudent combination of policies that we are now pursuing.

Mr. Budgen: Will my right hon. and learned Friend acknowledge that many of us are very relieved to hear that monetary conditions in this country will be set according to British conditions? If there were ever such a disaster as a single currency, for which my right hon. and learned Friend has been campaigning for the past 30 years, would we not then have our monetary policy set according to European conditions?

Mr. Clarke: I missed my hon. Friend in Bonn, as he has heard me on that subject many times before over the past 20 or 30 years, but he will be glad to know that I did not take the matter any further yesterday. I made it clear that we would address the subject only in the context of the views of the British Parliament of that time and that I thought that the Bundestag and the Bundesrat of the day would expect the same right if ever the same situation arose. I believe that the German constitutional court would insist on that. I said to my German audience that in my opinion we were right to opt out of the artificial timetable towards economic monetary union, and that events have proved us right. I also said that it was a waste of time going back to blueprints for economic and monetary union, and that we should get on with the business of convergence on low inflation and healthy public finances. As usual, I was commended by my German audience for my frankness and candour in explaining the British position to them.

Mr. Gordon Brown: On the Chancellor's speech in Bonn last night, and on the question not so much of a Britain at the heart of Europe as of divisions at the heart of


the Treasury, will the Chancellor now take the opportunity to disown the view of the Chief Secretary to the Treasury that
a single currency threatens our sovereignty, is unwanted, is impossible and the principle unacceptable
—yes or no?

Mr. Clarke: My right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary tells me that that is not an accurate quotation. [Interruption.] The hon. Gentleman is obviously doing myself and my right hon. Friend the courtesy of actually reading our speeches, as opposed to the interpretation put on them. He will profit by doing so and he will see clearly from both our speeches what the consistent policy of the Government is towards the kind of arrangements in the European Union that we British Conservatives want to see and which we demonstrated last weekend that we are determined to attain.

Budget Deficit

Mr. Trimble: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many years it will take, on current tax and growth rates, to eliminate the budget deficit.

The Chief Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Michael Portillo): In the Budget, the public sector borrowing requirement was projected to fall rapidly over the next few years and to be broadly in balance by 1998–99.

Mr. Trimble: That is a simple calculation on certain assumptions and not a forecast which, of course, would be subject to the same vagaries and infirmities as are normal in Treasury forecasts. Is it not the case that if we have to wait until 1998–99 to get the Budget under control, there will be no scope for the sort of tax cuts on which the chief Secretary's friends are dependent, unless there is either an increase in the rate of growth or a significant reduction in expenditure?

Mr. Portillo: The hon. Gentleman is right to refer to vagaries; that is why the Budget Red Book sets out a series of different cases with higher and lower growth. If we had higher growth, the PSBR would obviously be eliminated somewhat earlier. The hon. Gentleman is simply underlining what my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor has already said—that there can be no question of tax cuts until it is prudent for that to be considered by the Government.

Mr. Sykes: Does my right hon. Friend think that growth rates in this country will be helped by yesterday's disgraceful rail strike and does he agree with the Labour Front-Bench spokesman who recently described Jimmy Knapp as a hero?

Mr. Portillo: It is most extraordinary to have a rail strike being inflicted on the British travelling public and to see the failure by those people who are contending for the Labour party leadership to condemn outright the strike, the damage that it is doing to the British economy and the inconvenience that it is causing to the British people.

Mr. Nicholas Brown: Given the impact of the European economy on domestic growth rates, does the Chief Secretary believe in a single currency in principle —yes or no?

Mr. Portillo: I have nothing to add to what I said on that subject before. My right hon. Friend and learned

Friend the Chancellor and I have both made it perfectly clear from the Dispatch Box that that will be a matter for decision by this Parliament if and when the matter is put to Britain, which will not be in this Parliament but in a future British Parliament.

Retail Prices Index

Mrs. Gillan: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer which were the last two calendar years in which the retail prices index remained below 2 per cent. for the entire year.

Mr. Jenkin: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer in which last two years the retail prices index last remained below 2 per cent. for the entire calendar year.

Mr. Kenneth Clarke: Only two calendar years since the war have seen the headline inflation rate below 2 per cent. in every month; 1993 was one, and we have to go back almost 50 years to 1946 for the other.

Mrs. Gillan: Will my right hon. and learned Friend confirm that since 1990 the average family mortgage bill has fallen by £37 per week? Does he agree that new house buyers and the housing market in general are being severely hampered by high interest rates on long-term borrowing? When will the financial market wake up to our policy of low inflation and reduce interest rates on long-term borrowing?

Mr. Clarke: I agree with my hon. Friend. The main practical impact so far of higher long-term rates as a result of the fall in bonds has been a raising of the level of fixed-rate mortgages, which are becoming very popular, which has flattened off demand—temporarily, I am sure—in the housing market in this country. Obviously, we need to see stability in the financial markets for that reason and for many other reasons. Our best contribution to stability is to keep emphasising that the fundamentals are right in this country and that we are committed both to healthy public finances and to continuing to meet our low inflation target. I repeat our commitment to do that.

Mr. Jenkin: I congratulate my right hon. and learned Friend on his record on inflation. Inflation expectations are lower than they were at the time of the last Budget, and lower again than at the time when public expenditure totals were settled in last year's public spending round. At a time of such low inflation, how can we justify such large prospective increases in public expenditure as 4.6 per cent. next year and 6.2 per cent. the year after that? Should we not put the brakes on?

Mr. Clarke: My hon. Friend is right about the direction of inflation. Everyone has been revising downward their forecasts for inflation—not only the Treasury, but independent forecasters, my panel of advisers, and so on —as the year has gone on. Among other things, that offers beneficial prospects for the level of public spending. Last year's public spending round took £15 billion out of our then public spending plans, and the Cabinet has just agreed to confirm the figures that we have published as ceilings for the coming round. We are all determined to ensure that we deliver as tight a fiscal policy as is consistent with unavoidable expenditure and our policy commitments in the coming autumn round.

Mr. Sheldon: Will the Chancellor recall the evidence given by the Governor of the Bank of England to the


Treasury and Civil Service Committee when my hon. Friend the Member for Hackney, North and Stoke Newington (Ms Abbott) called the Governor an "inflation nutter"? Without agreeing with the words used by my hon. Friend on that occasion, does the Chancellor agree that by publishing so fully the details of his discussions with the Governor he has put much of the weight on the Governor of the Bank of England, to his own discredit and disadvantage? Is it not clear that there are other matters, such as investment incentives for manufacturing industry, which should be playing a larger part in the Government's policies?

Mr. Clarke: We believe that low inflation is an essential prerequisite for growth, prosperity and jobs in this country. That is why we are aiming at sustained recovery, but with low inflation to underpin it and give it a better chance of permanence. I commend to the right hon. Gentleman the minutes of the exchanges that I have with the Governor, from which he will see how much we agree on the conditions that we have to balance and bear in mind. The right hon. Gentleman may then better understand why we have been so successful over the past 12 months in getting the balance so right that the rate of growth exceeded the rate of inflation last year, which has happened in only four years since 1970 and plainly will do so again in 1994.

Mrs. Anne Campbell: Does the Chancellor agree that there has been a huge rise in those items that could be termed the basic necessities of life, such as water rates, council house rents and, of course, energy costs as a result of the imposition of value added tax on fuel, which affect people on low incomes disproportionately and are not affected so much by the retail prices index?

Mr. Clarke: Within the retail prices index at any given stage, some items go up faster than others. In fact, energy prices have gone down compared with other prices in most of the past few years. The poorer sections of society and all retirement pensions have, of course, been cushioned against the effects of VAT on fuel by the compensation in the Budget.

Sir Teddy Taylor: Is not the Government's excellent record threatened by the ever-increasing and inflationary demands from Brussels? Has the Chancellor seen the paper put privately before the Select Committee this week which said that our gross contribution in 1995 will rise by £2,000 million—or £3 per week per family—and that it has been calculated that the agricultural budget will break through the legal limits imposed at Edinburgh by more than £1,000 million. Is there nothing that we can do to contain that extravagance and the inflation coming to us from Brussels?

Mr. Clarke: The Edinburgh ceilings are tight—much tighter than those that the Commission was demanding, and far below its minimum expectations—and they will be strictly adhered to. I say that not just on behalf of this Government, but on behalf of other Governments who are determined to ensure that we see those ceilings applied in practice.
The variations from year to year to which my hon. Friend refers are largely caused by fluctuations in the pattern of payments. Different payments come in different years, causing an up and down fluctuation. [Interruption.] I cannot possibly give the list of causes for that, but one of the key causes is that our partners' financial year—the calendar year—is not the same as ours. Payments therefore

fluctuate wildly from one year to other. [Interruption.] Some people can never be convinced. Anyone who knows the Edinburgh ceilings knows that the idea that they are responsible for a further £2 billion of contributions is palpable nonsense.

Mr. Andrew Smith: Given the interrelationship between European monetary policy and the rate of inflation, will the Chancellor now stop shuffling around and tell the House whether he agrees with the Chief Secretary, who said in a GMTV interview on the question of a single currency that for him, "That's impossible"? Does the Chancellor agree or not?

Mr. Clarke: I did not hear the interview, but my experience is that quotations from interviews by the hon. Gentleman and other Opposition Members are likely to be wildly misleading and are unlikely to be accurate.
When we discuss economic and monetary union in Europe—whichever Minister is involved—we point out how right we were to opt out of the timetable and that we must get on with convergence on low inflation and healthy public finances, and not fresh blueprints for union. We make it quite clear that if ever the issue comes back of going to stage 3 of economic and monetary union, it will come to the British Parliament of the day. I wholly agree with my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary in that I do not remotely believe that that will be the Parliament of which we are currently all Members.

Mr. Batiste: Against the background of low inflation, is it not clear that inflationary pay demands in the public sector simply cannot be accepted? Would it not support the international perception of sterling as a strong currency if Opposition Front-Bench Members would condemn inflationary pay demands?

Mr. Clarke: The level of pay settlements in the public sector is consistent with our success in getting inflation under control, our control of public spending and our developing better quality services as private industry recovers with the same level of settlements also.
I find it absolutely incredible that the Labour party, which is posing as a responsible and modernised party, cannot bring itself even to say that an 11 per cent. interim claim based on alleged past improvements should be condemned. Quite plainly, as has been pointed out, the Labour Front-Bench spokesmen are openly supporting industrial action against the public in support of such a claim.

Local Authority Capital Receipts

Mr. Raynsford: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he is proposing to relax the current restrictions on the proportion of local authority capital receipts which can be applied for investment in housing and other capital projects.

Mr. Portillo: I understand that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment has no such plans.

Mr. Raynsford: Why are the Chief Secretary and his colleagues at the Department of the Environment so negative? The Prime Minister rightly pointed out that too many people are begging on our streets because they have no homes. Is it not time to get the unemployed back to


work building the homes needed for the homeless and to release local authority capital receipts to make that possible?

Mr. Portillo: We are not in the least bit negative. The fact that 179,000 social housing units are being provided over three years, which is well in excess of our manifesto commitment, rather proves that point. What we are positive about is controlling public sector borrowing. We are positive about establishing stable economic conditions, but the Labour party does not even understand that terminology.

Mr. Hawkins: Does my right hon. Friend agree that local authority receipts should first be applied to paying off the appalling debts of local authorities controlled by the Labour party? Does he agree that it is those spendthrift authorities—put in power by the supporters of the Labour party, who frequently do not pay their council tax—that are unable to budget properly and provide proper housing, which should be condemned?

Mr. Portillo: My hon. Friend is right. The local authorities whose spending of receipts is being controlled are those authorities that have large debts. They ran up those debts generally in the 1930s and the 1960s in order to build houses. When those authorities sell those houses again, it is not appropriate for them to retain the same level of debt. That is rather like saying that if someone borrows to buy a house he can have a large mortgage, but that if he sells that house and does not buy another one, it is, of course, no longer appropriate for him to continue to hold that level of mortgage. It is absolutely absurd for the Labour party to believe that those receipts can be spent without increasing public spending and public borrowing.

Negative Equity

Mr. Battle: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is his latest estimate of the impact of the rate of inflation on negative equity in the housing market.

Mr. Nelson: House prices have clearly increased since their trough in the first half of 1993, reducing negative equity. The latest estimate is that the number of households with negative equity has fallen by nearly 30 per cent. since the first quarter of 1993.

Mr. Battle: The housing market continues to bump along in the depths of the recession. Is not the Minister aware that 800 families lose their homes through repossession every week? Is not he aware that one in 17 families are in serious arrears with their mortgages and that 1.5 million families have negative equity on their homes? Does not he accept that the Chief Secretary's proposals to abolish or further restrict income support payments to home owners who lose their jobs will not only kill off the housing market but throw thousands of families on to the streets?

Mr. Nelson: The hon. Gentleman should check his facts, particularly about the number of people with negative equity, because there are now 500,000 fewer people with negative equity and he should welcome that. The fact is that court repossessions have fallen by 55 per cent. since 1991 and arrears have been reduced by nearly

10 per cent. The hon. Gentleman should welcome those improvements instead of suggesting that we should in some way inflate the property market to try to get rid of negative equity. That would be no answer to the problems of those with negative equity.

Mr. Waterson: Does my hon. Friend agree that one of the major reasons why the level of negative equity and debt overhang is coming down so rapidly, contrary to what the hon. Member for Leeds, West (Mr. Battle) has suggested, is that many people have prudently maintained their monthly payments at the same level even though interest rates have been falling?

Mr. Nelson: Yes. Many people have been able to reduce their negative equity, not so much because house prices have increased but because they have been able to reduce their indebtedness. The fact that we have been able to get interest rates down by such a significant extent is worth £160 a month off mortgage payments. That has meant that, in many cases, people have been able to reduce the negative equity in their property. That is reflected in the excellent figures and progress to which I referred earlier.

Mr. Darling: Does the Chancellor agree with the Governor of the Bank of England's assessment that interest rates are likely to rise? If that is the case, what will that do to the housing market and to the recovery?

Mr. Nelson: I never speculate, and nor will my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, on the future level of interest rates. What we do say is that the prospects for a revival in house prices—a gentle, not a massively inflationary increase—and the prospects for improving activity and transaction in that market are more likely to be served by a sound and steady recovery in the economy. We are seeing just that and it is clearly illustrated in the summer economic forecast published earlier this week. All that suggests that the forecasts, not just of the Government but of outside organisations such as the house builders, that house prices will continue to rise this year and next, will be met to the health and welfare of the housing market and home owners.

Mr. Duncan: In view of the Chancellor's two most recent speeches, will my hon. Friend convey to him my particular congratulations on his Mansion House speech? Does he accept that the question calls for a dangerous regime in which people will be deluded about the value of their assets? They will consider their houses as a source of riches on which they can regularly draw, but, in reality, they will achieve an economy in which productive resources are denied the long-term investment which this country so desperately requires.

Mr. Nelson: I very much agree with my hon. Friend. I hope that nobody in the House would seek to sustain the argument that the price of properties should consistently rise by more than inflation or the economy as a whole. Such a course would simply divert resources into fixed rather than productive assets. There would also be serious implications for first-time buyers, for whom properties would become much less affordable. There must be a relationship between the growth of the economy, the level of inflation and house prices. We do not want that to get out of synch.

VAT (Fuel)

Mr. Harvey: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what consideration he has given to introducing measures to reverse the increase in VAT on fuel in April 1995.

The Paymaster General (Sir John Cope): Parliament considered that matter and legislated last year.

Mr. Harvey: As the Government are committed to reducing taxation when economic circumstances allow, will they give a commitment to the House today that, when that happy day is reached, their first priority will not be to attract headlines by cutting income tax but rather to reduce VAT on domestic fuel?

Sir John Cope: We give no commitments of that sort in advance. In any case, is it not interesting that only a few minutes ago the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) was urging caution on my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor as regards tax cuts?

Mr. Patrick Thompson: Bearing in mind the generous compensation that has been provided to all pensioners for VAT on fuel, will my right hon. Friend have a word with the Secretary of State for Social Security to ensure that it is presented separately on pension books, because that would help me with my constituency correspondence?

Sir John Cope: I agree with my hon. Friend that the compensation is generous. I will pass on his suggestion to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Security.

Mr. Winnick: Does not the Minister understand the tremendous hardship already being caused by the imposition of VAT on domestic fuel? If that is not to be reversed, the Government should at least not impose the further measure in 1996, which will cause untold hardship, despite the Government's claims that those who need help are receiving it. The measure has been a great burden, which helps to explain the Tories' deep unpopularity in the country.

Sir John Cope: I do not quite follow the reference to 1996. Whatever the hon. Gentleman was thinking about, I understand the point that he makes. But he knows as well as anyone else that we do not make comments before the Budget.

Mr. Bill Walker: Will my right hon. Friend remind those European enthusiasts on the Opposition Benches that an energy tax is part of Europe's policy? Will he also remind them that the Government have been elected since 1979 on a policy of diverting direct taxes to indirect taxes, and that VAT is an indirect tax?

Sir John Cope: My hon. Friend is right. The carbon energy tax supported by the Opposition, particularly by the Liberals, would be a severe imposition on ordinary people.

Income Level Disparities

Mr. Betts: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what assessment he has made of the effect of Government policies on changes in disparities in income levels during the 1980s.

Mr. Clarke: Government policies are focused on improving incentives and encouraging business enterprise. That is the only way to ensure improved living standards for all.

Mr. Betts: Has the Chancellor read any of the reports produced recently which show that income disparities grew during the 1980s? For example, the "Economic Trends" survey shows that the poorest 20 per cent. of the population saw their share of disposable income fall from 10 to 7 per cent. during the 1980s; and the Institute of Fiscal Studies report shows that the poorest 10 per cent. of the population saw their real incomes fall by 15 per cent. during the 1980s. Does the Chancellor accept that all those reports show that the increase in unemployment, the transfer from high-paid skilled jobs to low-paid unskilled jobs, and the switch to indirect taxation have hit the poorest in the community the hardest and are responsible for the increased disparity? Will he accept Government responsibility for those matters, and will he explain to the House whether they are a result of Government incompetence or a deliberate result of their economic policies, for which he and his colleagues should be thoroughly ashamed?

Mr. Clarke: Many of the studies to which the hon. Gentleman refers in his question are, in my opinion, a complete misuse of the statistical information available to us. Average incomes have increased by 35 per cent. in the time that the Conservatives have been in office. The increase has obviously varied at different levels, but average incomes for all sections of society have increased by about 35 per cent. in real terms. That is after a period when they were very static, in the 1970s. It is true that there has been a widening of incomes, although there have been increases at all levels

Mr. Betts: There have not.

Mr. Clarke: It is true. That is why we are giving such priority to raising education standards, raising the level of skills and putting in place the new system of national vocational qualifications. In a modern economy, there will be a widening of that gap, and one has to give more people the skills that they require.
The research that the hon. Gentleman mentioned, which talks about the bottom 10 per cent., is totally misleading. That group always includes many people who declare that they have had absolutely no income of any type during the year. They include self-employed people who have accounts for that year showing a loss. If one examines individual groups, all wage-earners' real incomes have increased. People on benefit have done better. Pensioners' incomes have increased by 40 per cent. The 1980s was a period when, throughout the social spectrum, people in this country became very much better off.

Mr. Paice: Is not what really matters to those people on lower incomes the absolute income, not the comparison with higher levels, which is simply the politics of envy? Can my right hon. and learned Friend tell me whether there is anywhere in the world where a policy of making the rich poorer has succeeded in making the poor richer?

Mr. Clarke: I can remember one country, which is the United Kingdom, where a policy of trying to do that did immeasurable harm to the economy, and immeasurable harm to the incomes of most groups in the country, during


the 1970s. It is obvious, from the questions that Labour Members ask, that the Labour party would revert to that policy again if ever it had the chance.

Ms Harman: In view of the anger and dismay in the country about the prospect of VAT on gas and electricity increasing from 8 to 17.5 per cent. in April, is the Chancellor prepared to reconsider that increase on VAT on gas and electricity, or is he still determined to press ahead with it?

Mr. Clarke: The increase has already gone ahead. It has been accompanied by compensation for poor groups and all retirement pensioners, although, as my right hon. Friend the Paymaster General said, not all of them appreciate that it was added to an uprating which was quite low because inflation is now so low. Parliament has approved the second stage of the introduction of VAT on fuel, and it will be accompanied by a parallel package of compensation, which will again ensure that all retirement pensioners and all people on benefit will be compensated for the costs.

Tax Reductions

Mr. Gill: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what representations he has received in support of tax reductions.

Mr. Dorrell: I receive representations on many aspects of taxation.

Mr. Gill: My hon. Friend will be aware that Britain's gross contribution to the European Community Budget is already the equivalent of more than 3p on the standard rate of income tax. He may also be aware that the amount of Britain's net contribution to the European Budget almost exactly equates to the amount that the Irish Republic draws out of the Community. Does he agree that curbing expenditure in that area would not only be extremely popular with the electorate, but would create the scope for the tax cuts to which the Government are committed?

Mr. Dorrell: I entirely agree that curbing European Community expenditure is an important part of total budget discipline. That is why my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister took the line that he did at the Edinburgh summit, where, as the Chancellor said earlier, we achieved a substantial reduction in the ceiling on the Budget that the Commission were seeking. It is also the reason why our party negotiated the rebate in the early 1980s under my right hon. Friend Baroness Thatcher, which was opposed by the Labour party. It is also why we oppose, root and branch, the proposals adopted by the Labour party in the recent European election—to increase Community expenditure.

Mr. Simpson: Does the Minister accept that arguably the greatest success of the policies that the Government have pursued in forcing down wages has been that the poorest paid people have been made increasingly dependent on means-tested benefits, and are paying marginal rates of tax of 97p in the pound? Does he accept that that is the strongest argument now for paying those people decent wages, instead of inflicting punitive marginal rates of tax on them?

Mr. Dorrell: If the Labour party were seriously interested in improving the living standards of people on

the lowest incomes, I believe that it would recognise the obvious truth that has been shown by every report on the subject: the way to improve the living standards of the low income groups is to promote job creation, and any Government who are serious about that must conclude that to adopt the social chapter and a minimum wage is to march resolutely in the wrong direction. This Government are serious about wanting living standards to rise across the income scale, and we are pursuing policies that will deliver that.

Oral Answers to Questions — PRIME MINISTER

Engagements

Mr. Enright: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 30 June.

The Prime Minister (Mr. John Major): This morning, I presided at a meeting of the Cabinet and had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House, I shall be having further meetings later today.

Mr. Enright: Given the 16 per cent. increase in productivity since the last pay settlement achieved by the signalling staff, how does the Prime Minister justify spending £500 million and cramming money into the pockets of already wealthy bankers and PR men, when a mere 1 per cent. of that would give those signalling men a living family wage?

The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman has overlooked the fact that the signalling men are demanding an 11 per cent. pay rise with no productivity or restructuring. That is self-evidently not a reasonable claim in present circumstances. I very much regret the fact that they rejected the Railtrack offer, and that therefore there has been continued suffering for rail travellers.
What we should like to know clearly—yes or no—is whether the Opposition believe that these strikes should continue.

Mr. Michael Brown: Does the Prime Minister recall the speech that he made at the Conservative party conference in 1992, when he asked who had ever heard of a cricketer, Len Hutton, turning out to play for the county of Humberside? Is he aware that on the table of the Secretary of State for the Environment is a recommendation to the Local Government Commission, supported by just about every Labour and Conservative Member representing Humberside, and every Labour and Conservative councillor in the area, welcoming the report? Will he urge the Secretary of State for the Environment to get rid of the county of Humberside and to implement the recommendations as soon as possible?

The Prime Minister: I am sure that my right hon. Friend will have heard that plea. I think that there are many hon. Members on both sides of the House who would like the return of traditional areas and areas of local government that people will recognise and understand as having historical interest.

Mrs. Beckett: How can the Prime Minister justify a reported pay increase of £800 a week for the chief executive of National Power, at a time when the Institute


for Fiscal Studies has shown that the gap between the best paid and the lowest paid in Britain today is wider than it has been for 100 years?

The Prime Minister: The hon. Lady yet again tends to concentrate on every occasion on the politics of envy and redistribution instead of the politics of growth and job creation. When she learns that there is more to prosperity than envy and redistribution, she may be in a position to lecture others.

Mrs. Beckett: I am sure that the whole country will note that the Prime Minister failed to condemn either the pay increase or the widening pay gap. But surely he is aware that Government figures show that every ordinary British family, including the lowest paid of all, are paying more taxes now than they were when the Government came to power—with the sole exception of the kind of people who award themselves pay increases of £800 a week. How can that be right?

The Prime Minister: Of course, average real incomes are substantially up for people at all levels of income, as the right hon. Lady should know. But since the right hon. Lady returns yet again to tax, perhaps she would care to comment on the remarks of the hon. Member for Kingswood (Mr. Berry) who said recently:
We"—
that is the Labour party—
cannot put trust and tax on top of the agenda and then duck the economic issues.
That is what the right hon. Lady does.

Mrs. Beckett: What are certainly up for every ordinary British family are the taxes that they pay under this Government. As a result of the Government's economic failure, Britain today is a country of low wages, low skills, high crime and higher taxes. Whatever happened to the Prime Minister's promise to build a nation at ease with itself?

The Prime Minister: It is actually a nation of low inflation, increasing growth and falling crime. The right hon. Lady has been promising to set out her position on a number of issues and today she certainly has. She has published her own policy document and it enlightens a great deal. If any hon. Member would like to know more about it, I invite them—

Hon. Members: Answer.

Madam Speaker: Order. It is right that an answer should be given, but to the right hon. Member for Derby, South (Mrs. Beckett) who has every right to question the Executive about its policy.

The Prime Minister: The right hon. Lady has invited anybody who wishes to know more about her programme to phone her campaign hotline and ask for Kevin or Ian who will explain her policies.

Mr. Rowe: Will my right hon. Friend give a clear and categorical assurance to the House that he will not allow himself to be discouraged from his pursuit of a classless society by the growing probability that both the leading opposition parties will be led by public schoolboys?

The Prime Minister: The essence of the society that I wish to create lies in the fact that it does not matter whether they are or not.

Mr. Keith Hill: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 30 June.

The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Hill: Does the Prime Minister remember those happy Labour days of 1969 when he came to live in my Streatham constituency at the charming Primrose court when the unemployment rate in Streatham stood at one in 50? Thanks to his Government's policies it now stands at a shocking one in five. Is the Prime Minister be surprised to learn that there is no great demand in Streatham for a blue plaque to commemorate his stay at Primrose court?

The Prime Minister: I do not know how much the hon. Gentleman knows about Lambeth at that time in the late 1960s, but if he had checked a little more carefully he would have known that just a few months before the date that he quotes the Labour-controlled Lambeth council was swept from office, going from 57 to three in the local elections.

Mr. Fabricant: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 30 June.

The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Fabricant: Is not it the case that being at the heart of Europe and fighting one's corner for Europe are not mutually exclusive and, if the Opposition say that it is, is not that both false and weak? Is not it also the case that when it comes to exercising the veto or the threat of veto, other countries have used it far more often than we have and, when it comes to abiding by European directives, in the league of large countries, Britain comes top, France comes third and Germany comes bottom? Is not Germany's threat of the beef embargo a good example of that?

The Prime Minister: As my hon. Friend intimated, there is a long history of vetoes by other member states —some on the Commission presidency itself. Being at the heart of Europe means fighting for the best interests of this country and of Europe. It emphatically does not mean agreeing with everything that our partners propose. Frankly, that is not the way that Europe works. It is not how our partners behave, how they expect us to behave or how we will behave. Wherever appropriate, we will stand up for the interests of this country and of Europe, and for the nature of Europe that we believe everyone across the continent wants.

Mr. Clapham: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 30 June.

The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Clapham: Is the Prime Minister aware that figures provided by the Department of Social Security clearly show that the number of miners who fail tests for bronchitis and emphysema is well over 90 per cent? Does he share my concern that there is a need to review the regulations, not in five years or two years but immediately? Will he tell the House that he is prepared to set in train an immediate review of the bronchitis and emphysema regulations?

The Prime Minister: As the hon. Gentleman may know, the Government accepted and implemented in full the Industrial Injuries Advisory Council recommendation to add those diseases to the prescribed list. I am sure that was right. The recommendation was made and accepted.

Sir Dudley Smith: Is my right hon. Friend aware that President Reagan never looked back after he fired striking air traffic controllers? In view of the wilful neglect by Labour Members to do anything to help the travelling public, will my right hon. Friend consider doing the same with the striking signalmen?

The Prime Minister: We are currently hoping to see a settlement that would end those unnecessary strikes at the earliest date possible. At the moment, Railtrack and the Rail, Maritime and Transport union are in negotiation and I hope that they will reach agreement soon.

Mr. Alton: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 30 June.

The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Alton: Does the Prime Minister share the sense of horror felt by right hon. and hon. Members in all parts of the House at the massacre of half a million Rwandans and the displacement of 2 million others? Is there not some personal initiative that he could take to ensure that the 5,000 troops promised by the United Nations one and a half months ago are now all deployed, refugees are evacuated and those responsible for the genocide are brought before international courts and tried for war crimes?

The Prime Minister: Anyone who has seen the dreadful pictures from Rwanda will share the hon. Gentleman's sense of horror and revulsion. I strongly support the proposal currently being considered by the Security Council, to establish a committee of experts to investigate allegations of war crimes in Rwanda and then take appropriate action. As I am sure the hon. Gentleman knows, the special rapporteur on Rwanda appointed by a special session of the European Commission of Human Rights is now in the country. We expect his report tomorrow and I hope that action can swiftly follow.

Mr. Jacques Arnold: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 30 June.

The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Arnold: My right hon. Friend will be aware of our ambition to continue on the path of cutting the basic rate of tax. Has he contrasted that with the ambition of the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott)?

The Prime Minister: Our policy is entirely clear. Our overriding aim is to sustain the recovery that is now clearly evident—but when it is prudent to do so, we will certainly seek to cut tax rates again. I heard what the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott) said about tax a day or so ago. I am delighted that he set out his position —something of a novelty, in respect of tax, for Opposition Members. I hope that all other contenders will honour their previous promises and set out what they would do about tax.

Mr. Win Griffiths: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 30 June.

The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Griffiths: Does the Prime Minister recall telling his right hon. Friend the Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Sir E. Heath) last Monday that he regretted using the veto on Mr. Dehaene, and that it would have been avoided if the pre-conference preparations had been as thorough as they were in 1984? Was the Prime Minister suffering from selective amnesia or being economical with the truth in failing to tell the House that in 1984 his predecessor vetoed Claude Cheysson and supported Jacques Delors, who, unlike the Prime Minister, believes in giving workers legal protection from sweatshop employers?

The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman—perhaps by accident—is not telling the whole story. In 1984, there was a great amount of private consultation, and a number of countries—not just this one—indicated privately, not openly in the Council meeting, that they were unable to accept a particular candidate. My point was that if that sort of negotiation had taken place it would not have been necessary to apply the veto publicly, as I did. I hope that the hon. Gentleman now understands that.

Madam Speaker: Business question—Mr. Nick Brown.

Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. Before the Prime Minister leaves—

Madam Speaker: Order. I take points of order after business questions.

Business of the House

Mr. Nicholas Brown: Will the Leader of the House tell us the business for next week?

The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Tony Newton): The business for next week will be as follows:—
MONDAY 4 JULY—Opposition Day (16th allotted day) There will be a debate on "The Child Support Agency" on an opposition motion.
Proceedings on the following Bills, which are consolidation measures: Vehicle Excise and Registration Bill [Lords]; Value Added Tax Bill [Lords].
TUESDAY 5 JULY—Remaining stages of the Police and Magistrates' Courts Bill [Lords].
WEDNESDAY 6 JULY—Remaining stages of the Education Bill [Lords].
Motion on the Contracts (Applicable Law) Act 1990 (Amendment) Order.
THURSDAY 7 JULY—Opposition Day (17th allotted day). There will be a debate entitled "Meeting Housing Need" on a motion in the name of Plaid Cymru; and a debate on "Payment of State Benefits to Young People" on a motion in the name of the Scottish National party.
FRIDAY 8 JULY—Private Members' motions.
MONDAY 11 JULY—Opposition Day (18th allotted day). There will be a debate on an Opposition motion, subject to be announced.
The House will also wish to know that European Standing Committee 'B' will meet at 10.30 am on Wednesday 6 July to consider European Community document No. 5475/94 relating to trans-European Networks.

[Wednesday 6 July:

European Standing Committee B—European Community document: 10635/93, 5475/94 Trans-European Networks. Relevant European Legislation Committee Report: HC 48-xvi (1993–94).]?

Mr. Brown: I thank the Leader of the House for his statement, and for the Opposition days that he announced.
Given that there have been no statements from the Government accompanying the summer economic forecast, the league tables from the Secretary of State for Health and the Green Paper on the future of the Post Office, can the Leader of the House confirm that there will be a day's debate in Government time, before the recess, on economic affairs, the national health service and the Post Office respectively?
I am sure that no hon. Member has overlooked the fact that the right hon. Gentleman has not yet been able to tell us the date of the summer recess. Can he at least tell us when he will be able to tell us the date? Perhaps we shall be more fortunate next Thursday. For the avoidance of doubt, let me repeat that the request to know the date is not a request for an early departure.

Mr. Newton: Were I to accede to all the requests contained in the hon. Gentleman's first question, the date for the recess would clearly be some time in September. I hope to do rather better than that. My ambition—I would

put it no more strongly than that—is to give the House some indication when we are clearer about the progress of business, this time next week.
Similarly, I hope at that time to give the hon. Gentleman a clear indication of the date for the economic debate in which he is particularly interested, and which we certainly expect to have before the recess. I cannot be quite so forthcoming about the national health service and the figures published yesterday by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health, or, indeed, about the Post Office; but I should point out that a full statement on the Post Office was made some time ago, well before today's Green Paper was published.

Mr. Bernard Jenkin: May I draw my right hon. Friend's attention to the speech made in Bonn yesterday by our right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer? Will he join me in welcoming that speech? Does he agree that the ambiguity about the Government's attitude towards the single currency satisfies neither the audience at home nor the audience abroad? Is it not time that we had a debate to settle our attitude to the single currency?

Mr. Newton: I always welcome my right hon. and learned Friend's speeches. Only recently, we had a substantial opportunity to debate European matters.

Mr. Archy Kirkwood: Returning to the question of the non-statement on the Government's proposals for the Post Office, is it not ridiculous that we had a statement when there was some press speculation earlier, but we do not have a statement when the Green Paper is published?
There will be a strong sense of disappointment and frustration on both sides of the House that we have not had a statement from the President of the Board of Trade on this important issue. Can we have a debate, are there circumstances in which we might have a paving Bill before next year's Bill? Would that paving Bill happen before the summer recess?

Mr. Newton: What has been published today is a Green Paper inviting comments—a consultation document. Clearly there would be no question of producing legislation before the consultation period was over. I understand why the hon. Gentleman asked the earlier part of his question. For whatever reason, a substantial statement was made indicating in general terms the basis on which the Government would be publishing a Green Paper, and I think that there would have been no justification for another statement today.

Mr. John Butcher: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the Conservative party of all parties should never rewrite or forget history, which is what we did in the mid-1970s when we abolished many ancient and historic counties? Will my right hon. Friend help to ameliorate some of the confusion that has arisen from the local government boundary review, in which the laudable objective of moving to one-tier authorities has been confused with the Secretary of State's right to cover the map of England in counties, and this time his opportunity to restore all those ancient counties to our land?

Mr. Newton: That seems to be an echo of a question asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Brigg and


Cleethorpes (Mr. Brown) during Prime Minister's questions. I am sure that that earlier question, together with my hon. Friend's question, will have been heard, noted and inwardly digested by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment.

Mr. Alfred Morris: If we cannot have the date of the recess, can we have the date of the reshuffle? Can we have a considered response from the Government next week to the motion moved and carried in this House by the hon. Member for Exeter (Sir. J. Hannam) in relation to the Civil Rights (Disabled Persons) Bill? Are not the Government acting contemptuously of that motion?

Mr. Newton: Of course I do not accept the right hon. Gentleman's latter point. There have been many comments by myself and others, most notably by my right hon. Friend the Minister for Social Security and Disabled People, on the Government's response to the various points that have been made about that and our intention, which is being pursued now, to develop a range of practicable and workable proposals to advance further the cause of disabled people.
I can tell the right hon. Gentleman that, were there to be a reshuffle, it is unlikely that he would be involved.

Mr. Bob Dunn: Will my right hon. Friend promise an urgent debate next week on industrial relations as it would provide an opportunity for hon. Members on both sides of the House to condemn the Rail, Maritime and Transport union, first, for causing a massive strike on the railway system, secondly for making a pay demand four times the rate of inflation, thirdly for costing the railways El0 million for the strike and fourthly for causing massive disruption and a loss of jobs to many people in the south-east, including my constituency of Dartford?

Mr. Newton: Were I not conscious of the House's desire for a date for the recess, I should be much tempted by my hon. Friend's suggestion. He admirably, and much more briefly than he could have in a speech in a debate, made a number of telling points.

Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: Has the Leader of the House read your clear ruling two weeks ago, Madam Speaker, on the propriety of Ministers at the Dispatch Box asking questions of Opposition Members at the Dispatch Box? Has the right hon. Gentleman discussed the matter with the Prime Minister, who, in reply to Question 1 today, did precisely that? Will the Leader of the House make a statement on what Ministers' practice will be in the future? Will your ruling be upheld?

Mr. Newton: The question of your ruling is a matter for you, Madam Speaker, as I imagine you would agree. I read and, indeed, heard what you said some time ago—as, no doubt, did my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister. I heard nothing this afternoon that was incompatible with that.

Mr. Harry Greenway: Will my right hon. Friend arrange for a debate next week on the decision in the Manchester High Court to make two lesbian women legal parents of a child, bearing in mind the damage to the child concerned and to society, which is based on proper family life, where children are entitled to a parent of both sexes and where lesbians do not conceive children in the circumstance that applied in this case?

Mr. Newton: I well understand why my hon. Friend has raised the point, but I hope that he will understand that I am reluctant to comment from the Dispatch Box on a court judgment that I have not had an opportunity to study. The case is sensitive and involves a number of people, including the child.

Mr. John D. Taylor: Will the Leader of the House assure us that a statement will be made before the summer recess on the outcome of the present secret talks on the future of Northern Ireland between Her Majesty's Government and the Dublin Government?

Mr. Newton: My right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland continues to pursue, in an appropriate way, means of carrying forward the process of seeking to bring peace to Northern Ireland. He always makes a statement to the House when he thinks it appropriate to do so.

Mr. Nicholas Budgen: As the sixth British soldier has been killed in Bosnia this week, and as The Times reports that the ceasefire in central Bosnia has broken down, will my right hon. Friend allow another debate on the matter before the House rises, so that hon. Members may have an opportunity to express their opinion on whether they wish this country to be sucked further into a Balkan civil war?

Mr. Newton: I regret that I cannot promise such a debate if I am to fulfil the hopes about the recess that are being pressed on me from various quarters. My hon. Friend has made a serious point, and I regard it as my duty to ensure that the implicit thrust of his question is drawn to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary.

Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody: Will the Leader of the House consider the questions that I have tabled to the Department of Transport about road safety? Will he find time next week for the House to debate the fact that one in three coaches and large vehicles that were stopped were found to have defective brakes, and many of them had defective steering? At a time when a sad inquest is taking place, it will concern every parent in this country that we are not debating such road transport matters.

Mr. Newton: I have not had an opportunity to study the hon. Lady's questions, but I am sure that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport will consider with great care the questions and the issues that she raised.

Sir Edward Heath: In view of questions already asked, will my right hon. Friend give an assurance that he and his colleagues will resist any attempts to revert to forms of local government that, more than 20 years ago, were already declared out of date by a royal commission and by other inquiries, including our own in the party, and that instead, his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment will continue to move forward to secure a form of local government that will meet the needs of our fellow citizens as we go into the 21st century?

Mr. Newton: I assure my right hon. Friend that my other right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment will seek to move in a way that meets those


general requirements. It has to be said, I fear, that not everyone is agreed on what the requirements mean when they are translated into actual proposals.

Mr. Dennis Skinner: Following on from that, if we had such a statement or debate, would it not make sense for the Government to drop this whole review of local government and get on to the problems that really affect people in the shires, the towns and the cities—to start building houses, to repair the schools and to rebuild the welfare state, instead of pottering about with boundaries? In 1974 it was a mess, and the Government did the same with the hospitals. The present review will create the same sort of havoc, and it will cost more than £1 billion. Use the money to help the people instead of shifting the boundaries.

Madam Speaker: Order. Is the hon. Gentleman asking for a statement on those matters next week, or is he merely making a statement himself?

Mr. Newton: If I may take it as a request for a statement next week, Madam Speaker, my answer is that I cannot promise that; I simply make the observation that I can think of a number of places—although I am not sure that I would wish to have their names dragged from me at the Dispatch Box—where reform in local authority structures might improve the application of policies in exactly the areas that the hon. Gentleman mentioned.

Sir Dudley Smith: Is my right hon. Friend aware that his inability to give the date of the recess today significantly underlines the need for reform of our parliamentary hours? Will he say how his negotiations on that subject are going? Is he aware that most continental Parliaments have already adjourned, or will do so over the coming week? I am not making a personal plea, because my children are grown up, but this is a fairly young Parliament, and many Members have young children. It is grossly unfair to them to have to sit on late into July.

Mr. Newton: I do not think that negotiations about hours can necessarily remove all the difficulties and uncertainties at certain times of the parliamentary year, but the answer to my hon. Friend's underlying question is that my talks with the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, East (Mr. Brown) have proved constructive and are being carried forward, but of course there are several difficult issues to be teased out.

Mr. John Gunnell: The Leader of the House will have seen the written answer last Monday to my question about minerals planning guidance. There was a promise that the new guidance note will be published before the recess. Will the Minister make certain that there will be the opportunity to debate it, if not before the recess then as soon as we reassemble? The debate on the Coal Industry Bill showed that there is considerable interest in opencasting on both sides of the House.

Mr. Newton: Perhaps I might simply bear that request in mind, without commitment for either side of the recess, and certainly without commitment before the recess.

Mr. Iain Duncan Smith: Judging by today's questions from the Opposition, they are clearly

unclear about our position on the single currency. In a spirit of helpfulness, I wonder whether we might have a debate on that matter, so that we can express our own clarity to clear up their unclarity.

Mr. Newton: I take it that that is the same spirit of helpfulness as that displayed by my hon. Friend the Member for Colchester, North (Mr. Jenkin), and I think that I shall rest on the answer that I gave him.

Mr. Max Madden: Will the Leader of the House give a guarantee that there will be a full and proper debate in the House if the Secretary of State for Social Security decides to introduce the so-called habitual residency test in connection with social security benefits?

Mr. Newton: The Secretary of State will be here on Monday not only for a debate but to answer questions, and that might provide the hon. Gentleman with an opportunity.

Mr. Gyles Brandreth: Will my right hon. Friend consider an urgent debate on employment issues, not only in the light of the good employment news from the city of Chester, where unemployment fell last year by 6 per cent., and has fallen by 35 per cent. since six years ago, but to tease out the views of the Opposition, who advocate full employment, in stark contrast to policies that the OECD has defined as likely to increase unemployment? May we have an urgent debate on that issue? The hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, East did not ask for a debate, but I would certainly welcome one.

Mr. Newton: So, I think, would many people, because I am glad to say that the fall in unemployment is not confined to the city of Chester. As it happens, although the Opposition spokesman did not ask specifically for a debate on employment and unemployment, those subjects would certainly be embraced in the debate on economic issues that he requested, and that I have promised. I hope that my hon. Friend will make those points during that debate.

Mr. Paul Flynn: In support of my hon. Friend the Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody) who asked for a debate on road transport, may I ask the Leader of the House whether he has observed the questions that have been tabled about the new danger posed by bull bars—a new fashion which people are fixing on the front of their Land Rover cars?
Has the right hon. Gentleman noticed that the Department of Transport has said that, if a child is hit at 20 mph by a Land Rover without a bull bar, the child will probably just be injured, but that, if a child is hit at 10 mph by a Land Rover with a bull bar, the accident will almost certainly be fatal? May we not have a debate so that we can banish this new "and terrible safety hazard, which is only a fashion accessory and serves virtually no real purpose?

Mr. Newton: That is another point at which, I am sure, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport will wish to look with care.

Mr. Richard Ottaway: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the draft declaration for the G7 summit in Naples yet again calls on the United Nations conference on population and development, which will take place in Cairo this September, to come up with a solution to the world's population problem? Is he aware that the conference will have 18,000 delegates, which


makes it every bit as big as the Rio summit two years ago, on which my right hon. Friend allowed not one but two debates in the House? Will he consider even a short debate before the House rises for the summer?

Mr. Newton: My hon. Friend has consistently taken a serious and proper interest in these matters, and the conference he describes is obviously a substantial event. I cannot promise a debate before the recess, but in the serious spirit in which the point has been raised, I tell my hon. Friend that I shall look carefully to see whether there is any possibility of a debate at some appropriate time.

Mr. Kevin Hughes: May I draw the attention of the Leader of the House to early-day motion 912?
[That this House welcomes the publication of the consultation paper Late Payment of Commercial Debt, as announced by the Chancellor of the Exchequer in his Budget statement; notes the negative impact which late payment of commercial debt has on the job creation potential of in particular, smaller businesses; recognises the importance of the small business sector in generating growth in the United Kingdom economy; and believes that the only effective solution to the problem of late payment of business debts is the implementation of a statutory right to interest on overdue commercial debts.]
I remind the right hon. Gentleman that, despite repeated rhetoric from Ministers, no action has been taken on the early-day motion or on the issue of late payments by big industries to small businesses, which causes problems not only for my constituents, but for people throughout the country.
Given that more than 300 hon. Members from both sides of the House have signed the early-day motion, which calls for statutory rights on interest payments, will the Leader of the House ask a Treasury Minister to come to the House to make a statement on why the Government continually refuse to support small businesses on this issue?

Mr. Newton: I cannot accept that the Government have persistently refused to support small business on the issue. On the contrary, it is an area in which the Government have consistently sought to help, not least by improving the performance of public authorities in dealing with their bills from small businesses. The hon. Gentleman will be aware of the difficulties of the issue, of the considerable discussion of it in the recent White Paper on competitiveness and of what it said about how the Government intend to proceed.

Mr. James Clappison: In view of the recent good news about the significant fall in serious crime in many areas, including my constituency, will my right hon. Friend find time for an early debate on crime? The hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair) might well welcome an opportunity to return to the House where he would, no doubt, like to welcome the news of falling crime.
Such a debate might also give him an opportunity to explain what he means by being tough on crime and tough on the causes of crime, as his deputy, the hon. Member for Lewisham, Deptford (Ms Ruddock), has made it clear this week that the policy does not include sending serious criminals to prison. Would not the hon. Member for

Sedgefield welcome the opportunity to come to the House to rebut the growing suspicion that his policy is a lot of meaningless and misleading waffle?

Mr. Newton: I think that a number of people would welcome some sight in the House of the hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair), and they would certainly welcome some explanation that went beyond, or beneath, the generalisations that he utters everywhere else about precisely what his policies are. Unhappily, I cannot promise a debate, not least because, in the wake of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Bill, we seem to have had quite enough time to debate these matters in recent months.

Mr. Alan Simpson: Will the Leader of the House pay some attention to the report issued today in Nottinghamshire about the circumstances surrounding the tragic death of Leanne White? Will the right hon. Gentleman also look at the growth in pressure on social workers who are dealing with child protection matters, with the intention of making a statement to the House, and perhaps providing time for a debate on the growth in the number and the severity of demands in child care cases and the growing gap between those demands and resources available to deal with them?

Mr. Newton: From my experience as child care Minister on two occasions, I know of the pressures and problems which can affect workers in that field, so I certainly would not dismiss in any way the hon. Gentleman's question. While I cannot promise a debate, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health, who, of course, has responsibility for those matters, will be here next Tuesday.

Mr. Oliver Heald: Has my right hon. Friend had an opportunity to consider early-day motion 1363?
[That this House notes that Railtrack in making an offer of 5.7 per cent., to restore the relativities of signalling staff grades' pay at its meeting with RMT on 7th June, effectively accepted the Union's argument that before any future discussions on productivity, it was necessary to compensate the signalling staff for their past productivity; also notes that it is clear that it is only because of outside interference from Government sources that this offer was withdrawn and, whilst insufficient to meet the signalling staff's honest aspirations, the 5 per cent. offer did lay the basis for negotiation, and therefore, the full responsibility for the current disruption of rail services must lie with the Government; therefore believes that the only proper solution to this dispute, is for the Government to stop their interference, and for Railtrack to reopen discussion on the basis of their original position that past productivity gains by signalling staff deserve compensation; and affirms its support for striking RMT members in their attempt to attain fair and honest treatment.]
More than 51 Labour Members support the strike action of the National Union of Rail, Maritime and Transport Workers, which has caused such disruption to commuters in my constituency. In the light of that, has my right hon. Friend received a request from those on the Opposition Front Bench for a Supply day debate on that strike? If not, is that because they are trying to protect the hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair), who will not come out and say what he thinks about the strike? If they are not prepared to


have a debate on the matter, may we have one, so that Conservative Members can state our strong opposition to this greedy strike?

Mr. Newton: That is another request from my hon. Friend, to which I would very much wish to accede if I felt that it were practicable to make such time available. The one thing on which we can all agree is that there is not the slightest chance of the Opposition seeking a Supply day on the matter, since it would expose their division and the extent to which implicitly—and, in some cases, explicitly—they support that irresponsible strike.

Rev. Martin Smyth: Reference has already been made to some decisions of 20 years ago. Will the Leader of the House give a commitment that, when the issue of Northern Ireland and the way in which it is governed comes up again, we shall have more than an hour and a half for debate, bearing in mind the exchanges in the House on Tuesday night? As the epitome of modern democracy, we would like to think that Westminster sets a standard.
May I also add that next week is Alzheimer's awareness week? I trust that there shall be an opportunity for the House to recognise it.

Mr. Newton: I am acutely conscious of the problems caused by Alzheimer's disease, to which the hon. Gentleman referred, and I am glad that he has managed to mention those problems in the House in such a way. However, he will appreciate that I cannot promise a debate.
On the point about Northern Ireland, I am aware of the concerns which were expressed in the House earlier in the week, although they were against the background of a week in which probably about half the time had been spent debating Northern Ireland matters. Nevertheless, I do not dismiss that concern, and I shall, of course, reflect on the points which have been raised.

Mr. Graham Riddick: I would like to tell my right hon. Friend how much I welcome the fact that we shall be debating the Police and Magistrates' Court Bill on Tuesday, because it will provide an opportunity for the hon. Member for Sedgefield to come to the House of Commons. We have not seen him or heard from him for weeks, and the debate will give him an opportunity to spell out where he stands on a number of key law and order issues. Is the hon. Gentleman aware that his personal statement says practically nothing about law and order matters? He is full of pious platitudes, but they contain precious few policies.

Mr. Newton: With his characteristically vigorous language, my hon. Friend makes a point that I made slightly more gently a few moments ago. I certainly hope that his plea will fall on listening ears.

Mr. Harry Barnes: At 2.30 today, a report was published by Sir John May relating to the bombings in Guildford in 1974, which affects the position of the Guildford Four. Will there be a chance to discuss that report in the House? There is considerable interest in the case nationally at the moment, as there is a major film called "In the Name of the Father", which deals with those events and which a number of people believe contains various inaccuracies.

Mr. Newton: I cannot make an immediate promise of an opportunity to discuss that issue, but the hon. Gentleman will be aware that the Royal Commission on Criminal Justice made a number of recommendations in that area and, no doubt, at some appropriate time, there may be such an opportunity.

Mr. Anthony Coombs: Would the Leader of the House arrange a debate next week on choice and diversity in education, in which we may warmly welcome this week's announcement that there will be more grammar-school places in the country? We may also ask why the Labour party, in the House and in local authorities, seems so vindictively to oppose grant-maintained schools, when the hon. Member for Sedgefield and the shadow Chief Secretary seem personally to endorse them for their own children?

Mr. Newton: The straightforward answer is that I cannot begin to explain that. Unhappily, I cannot see that his presumed appearance on the Police and Magistrates' Courts Bill will provide the hon. Member for Sedgefield with an opportunity to explain on that occasion, but we can keep our fingers crossed that some such opportunity might arise.

Mr. David Winnick: In view of the likely escalation of the signalmen's dispute, is the Leader of the House aware that we would welcome a statement from the Government next week? We would expect, and certainly the public would expect, a positive contribution from the Government to try to resolve the dispute, instead of their mischief-making and union-bashing.
As for the accusation of being greedy, does that not come ill from those on the Tory Benches who have more than one income? How would they like to compare their total income with that of the signalmen, who are undoubtedly on a low wage and believe that their claim is perfectly justified? I believe that their claim is justified, and that the Government should help to resolve the dispute.

Mr. Newton: I do not regard the phrase "union-bashing" as a reasonable description of the rejection of a position in which signalmen are demanding an 11 per cent. pay rise with no productivity or restructuring. That is simply not responsible under present circumstances.

Dr. Robert Spink: Can my right hon. Friend find time next week for a debate on the recently published national health service performance comparison tables? The tables are excellent, and will enable standards in all hospitals to be raised to those of the best hospitals. It would give me an opportunity to debate the capitation funding of hospitals in Essex which fall somewhat short of the capitation funding of hospitals in London.

Mr. Newton: As a fellow Essex Member, I obviously find some difficulty in commenting on that, except to say that, over the years, I have also played my part in pressing things in the right direction. Of course, over the years, significant progress has been made in adjusting the balance in ways that are helpful to areas of rising population. As my hon. Friend will know, that process is continuing.

Mr. Peter Hain: Can the Leader of the House find time next week for a statement on the Post Office, especially as the Green Paper has been dished out to journalists over the road before it is available in the Vote Office for hon. Members? As a fierce opponent of Post


Office privatisation, may I nevertheless applaud the lemming-like determination of the President of the Board of Trade to introduce legislation that will almost certainly be opposed and defeated in the House, not least by his Back Benchers—especially rural Members who know that it would be a disaster to sell off the Post Office—and it would be electoral suicide for the Conservatives as well?

Mr. Newton: I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman has yet had the chance to study the Green Paper—

Mr. Hain: It is not in the Vote Office.

Mr. Newton: —but he might be wise to do that before making comments of the sort that he has made. I have already said something about the question of a statement, and I will not add to that. I will certainly inquire into the position that he describes about copies in the Vote Office.

Lady Olga Maitland: Will my right hon. Friend consider a debate next week on human rights? Last week, I raised the issue of the 625 Kuwaiti detainees still held in Iraq. This week, three Kuwaiti Members of Parliament have been in London visiting colleagues on both sides of the House. They are concerned that oil embargoes on Iraq could be lifted before the detainees are released. Bearing in mind that this country has ancient and loyal ties with Kuwait, would it not be in order for us to discuss that?

Mr. Newton: I pay a tribute to my hon. Friend's persistent advocacy of that cause. If I may, I shall bring her representations to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary.

Points of Order

Mr. Max Madden: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. I have always thought that the point of the business statement was to ask the Leader of the House to arrange debates or statements. Clearly, you have been concerned that Ministers should reply relating to their responsibilities. A few moments ago, I asked the Leader of the House a brief and direct question: whether he would arrange for a debate if the Secretary of State for Social Security chose to introduce certain regulations.
The Leader of the House referred me to the Secretary of State for Social Security on Monday. As the Secretary of State has no responsibility for arranging debates, and the Leader of the House has that responsibility, I wonder whether, on reflection, the Leader of the House might now choose to answer my question, rather than referring me to somebody who has no responsibility in that area.

Madam Speaker: Perhaps the Leader of the House forgot to use the word "no" at the beginning of his answer.

The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Tony Newton): For your assistance, Madam Speaker, and following your characteristic generosity, I am not quite sure what I forgot, but I did think that the hon. Gentleman was basically making a point about whether he thought that such regulations ought to be introduced. That matter would be for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Security. Were those regulations to be introduced, and were they to be affirmative regulations, obviously I would wish to arrange for a debate.

Mr. Paul Tyler: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. Will you consider preparing and giving general guidance to the House on when you expect ministerial statements to be made? As you will appreciate, there have been a number of inquiries this afternoon about whether statements will be made on matters of policy which have been announced outside the House. There is, I think, some confusion generally in the House about when we should expect ministerial statements.
I particularly take the example of the postal services, where, as has been pointed out, we had a statement in response to a newspaper leak. However, when the Green Paper was prepared, it was issued to journalists without an opportunity for the House to examine it. As you will understand, Back-Bench Members from both sides of the House—particularly from rural areas, although not exclusively so—think that this is a matter of great concern, not just for the reputation of Parliament but to our constituents. Can you give guidance to those on the Treasury Bench, as well as to Back Benchers, as to when you expect ministerial statements to be made?

Madam Speaker: The hon. Gentleman understands, as does the House, that a Green Paper is a consultative document and therefore the beginning of the legislative procedure and not the end.
I certainly could not take on the responsibility of anticipating when the Government were about to make a statement. The Government inform me when they wish to make a statement. The House is informed during the lunch period, so that all Members are fully aware an hour or two before a statement is to be made.

STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS, &c.

EDUCATION

Motion made, and Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 101(3) (Standing Committees on Statutory Instruments, &c.)

That the draft Education (Inter-authority Recoupment) Regulations 1994 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.—[Mr. MacKay.]

Question agreed to.

Orders of the Day — Northern Ireland Act (Extension)

The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Sir Patrick Mayhew): I beg to move,
That the draft Northern Ireland Act 1974 (Interim Period Extension) Order 1994, which was laid before this House on 24th May, be approved.
The draft Order renews the temporary provisions in the Northern Ireland Act 1974, under which the government is carried out by direct rule for a further 12 months. Believing strongly, as I do, in the virtues of local democratic responsibility I regret intensely that it should be necessary to renew it yet again. I know that, however, to be the case, and I accordingly shall follow precedent by referring the House to some aspects of the Government's stewardship in Northern Ireland during the past year. My speech must be appropriately brief.
Security matters remain in the forefront of our minds, particularly after the recent disgusting atrocity in Loughinisland. But the House has taken a recent opportunity, in our debate on the emergency powers provisions, to discuss this topic. There has been progress by the security forces in many areas, but terrorist crimes, both loyalist and republican, continue to deny the people of Northern Ireland what they most desire—the enjoyment of their right to live their lives in peace.
The House will recall all too vividly some of the revolting things the people of Northern Ireland have been forced to suffer during the past year. For example, in the latter part of 1993, in the space of seven days in October, 23 people lost their lives. None of us will forget the bombing on the Shankill road, in which 10 people were killed, or the equally ruthless massacre of seven people at Greysteel.
No matter how vainly repetitious it may seem, it is necessary for the House once more to condemn, without qualification, all those and the other attacks which have taken place. There is no acceptable level of violence, and we must never give the impression that there is. I admire immensely the steadfastness and resolution of Northern Ireland's people. I also wish to pay a special tribute to the disciplined courage and professionalism of the security forces who protect the people. Last year, 14 police officers and soldiers were killed while carrying out their role of protecting the community. Five have been killed this year.
Nor do we forget the arduous work of the prison service. What we are sometimes in danger of forgetting is the successes continually achieved by the security forces in the fight against terrorism. In 1993, more than 350 people were charged with terrorist-related offences, including more than 50 with murder and attempted murder. So far this year, 233 people have been charged with terrorist offences. Only this week, seven people have been charged, including two with murder.
The Chief Constable estimates that four out of five attempted attacks are thwarted. Much of the work of the security forces, by its nature, can receive little publicity, but the Royal Ulster' Constabulary never gives up. We give it the fullest practical support and backing, and I salute its work, and the work of those who support it, today.
Today, we will also have in mind those who so tragically died in the helicopter crash on the Mull of Kintyre on 2 June. The deaths of so many first class police officers, Army officers, civil servants and air crew constituted a grievous loss. Our sympathy for those bereaved unites us all. I have received many touching letters. But the work of those fine people continues.
From the particular issue of security, I turn now to our co-ordinated approach to the political, economic and social problems that confront the people of Northern Ireland. Adverse economic and social conditions—which affect both sides of the community—can be used to suggest an ostensible, although always a spurious, pretext for terrorism. There is therefore a particular need for the promotion of a buoyant economy, increased job opportunities, and greater prosperity, and a need for all in the community of Northern Ireland to have equal opportunity to enjoy those benefits.
I shall refer to our progress in those matters in a moment, but first we must remember that terrorism abhors harmony and thrives on discord. There is therefore a particular need for the promotion of a political settlement —one that is broad in character and will attract widespread support, by reason of its characteristics, right across the community of Northern Ireland. It is to this area of patient and often frustrating endeavour in the past year that I now turn.
It remains the Government's firm belief that any settlement likely to achieve such acceptance and support must address all the main relationships: those within Northern Ireland; those within the island of Ireland; and those between the two Governments in Dublin and London. It was for that reason that, with the other participants, we agreed in 1991 that the political talks should be structured in three strands, reflecting those sets of relationships. Nothing would be finally agreed in any strand until everything was agreed in the talks as a whole.
Some have claimed, and continue to claim, that seeking an overall settlement in this way is far too ambitious, and that the process should move forward one step at a time. It is quite clear to us, however, that, because of the differing ideals and differing ultimate objectives of those who have participated in the talks, agreement on one set of relationships is only likely to be reached if the context for it is provided by agreement on the three sets of relationships as a whole. We believe that to be a political reality which cannot be wished away, and one which all of us involved in the process must recognise and work with.
Since September 1993, the Government have been conducting bilateral discussions with three of the four main constitutional parties. We should like to see all four involved. Our purpose has been to explore the basis upon which we might all together sit down again for further dialogue. The present aim is to establish areas of common agreement; explore areas of continued apprehension or disagreement and to try to identify the degree of flexibility that may be needed on all sides to resolve those difficulties.
We have been discussing the Government's ideas for giving direction and renewed impetus to the talks process. For our part, it is my hon. Friend the Minister of State who has been principally engaged, but the Prime Minister and I have also participated. We are each of us grateful for the sincere participation of our colleagues in this process.
On the basis of the talks that occurred in 1992, and those that are going on now, there is a good measure of contingent agreement on strand 1 on the nature of new democratic institutions for Northern Ireland.
Strand 1 is especially significant today, because, if, as I believe is achievable, final agreement is reached among the main parties on the exercise of local democratic responsibilities, then, in the context of an overall settlement, the Government would implement the new arrangements agreed, and today's order would need no successor. But to be lasting, any such local democratic institutions must be widely acceptable throughout the community of Northern Ireland and must therefore give a genuine and fair share of democratic responsibilities to both sides of the community.
It is clear, however, that what common ground exists among the parties on strand 1 is contingent on a satisfactory outcome to the process as a whole, including strands 2 and 3. To help progress to be made in those two strands, in both of which all the main parties accepted that the two Governments should each be involved, we are currently working with the Irish Government on a framework document. As always, that has given rise to apprehensions about what may be afoot.
First, therefore, I repeat without equivocation that the future of Northern Ireland lies in the hands of its own people. There will be no change in its constitutional status as an integral part of the United Kingdom save in accordance with the democratic wishes of its people, and no political settlement without the participation of the main political parties in arriving at it, and the widespread acceptance of the people of Northern Ireland to the outcome.
Secondly, let me address fears about what is spoken of as "joint authority". I think that that means that the British and Irish Governments would jointly run the affairs of Northern Ireland over the heads of the people. It is feared that the two Governments seek or plan to impose that. There is no truth in that at all. To impose such a structure against the will of the people of Northern Ireland would be incompatible with the principle of consent. For that reason, it would, in my belief, be unacceptable to this House. Additionally, however, it is not sought by the Irish Government, let alone our own. As Mr. Spring said on 25 April,
Joint authority is not being considered".
It is quite a different matter to examine, as the four parties and the Governments all did in 1992, ways in which, without impinging in any manner on sovereignty, some north-south body could enable common cause to be made in areas of common interest. That would be to the general good of both parts of the island of Ireland.
However, acceptability remains the key test. I believe that such a body would be acceptable, not only in Northern Ireland but in the Republic as well, only if it operated in areas clearly delegated to it by the appropriate legislatures in each jurisdiction. For the same reason, it would have to be accountable to democratic institutions in Belfast and Dublin, with decisions taken on the basis of agreement between the representatives of both parts of the island.
Provided, of course, that there is widespread agreement in Northern Ireland, there is no reason why a body constructed in that way should not assume a variety of delegated functions and responsibilities, including executive functions. That does not confer joint authority on the Dublin Government over Northern Ireland or anything like


it, any more than Stormont conferred such authority when, in 1952, it set up the Foyle Fisheries Commission to regulate the river that is bisected by the border. All that falls squarely within the ambit of strand 2.
Nor is there any question of us working on a deal to be imposed on the political parties or Northern Ireland people. That would be incompatible with the foundation principle of consent. Our aim is to help the process forward through discussion and agreement with the parties and, ultimately, the people. As the Taoiseach clearly put it on 24 May:
We recognise that the only agreement which will last is one that the Unionist and Loyalist community have freely participated in making".
It is, of course, possible to work upon some people's natural fears by making unfounded assertions about the discussions known to be taking place between our own and the Irish Government. It is not only possible; it is easy. To some, it seems irresistibly tempting. But it is also irresponsible. What we are about is endeavouring to achieve a shared understanding between us of the elements of a political settlement which, in our view, is most likely to command widespread support across the community in Northern Ireland.
We wish to do that, not to give Dublin a role in running the internal affairs of the north but to help all the participants reach an overall agreement in the knowledge of the two Governments' views, where those may be relevant and only where those may be relevant.
I would expect any outcome to include the following elements: a shared and mutually acceptable understanding of those important constitutional matters known to be in issue; the establishment of locally accountable democratic institutions in Northern Ireland which provide an appropriate and worthy role for representatives of both main parts of the community; new arrangements for contact, co-operation and working together within the island of Ireland; and new arrangements between the two Governments. I believe that, with reality and good will, all those should be attainable.

Mr. David Winnick: Does the Secretary of State agree that those objectives are desirable, and would be so to any fair-minded person in Northern Ireland, the United Kingdom or the Republic? Does he further agree that, if we want the support of the international community in the fight against terrorism—and I believe that we have that support—it is important for the international community to understand the willingness of the British Government and the Irish Government to work together jointly, and to recognise that there are certain responsibilities in the island of Ireland on which, from a purely common-sense point of view, it is right and proper that Northern Ireland and the Republic should be working together? If the international community understands what is desired by both Governments, all the more reason for us to have their continued support.

Sir Patrick Mayhew: I agree that there is support in the international community for the fight against terrorism, and I think that much heart has been taken in the international community by reason of the evidence afforded by the joint declaration that the two Governments stand side by side on such important matters. I think that there is a genuine understanding that, in aspects where there is common interest, it makes good sense to make

common cause. It is also widely understood that it would not be acceptable for that process to impinge on sovereignty. That is a matter which must be determined by the consent of the people involved.
In the broader field, practical co-operation on a range of economic and social issues has continued in the past year. The Royal Ulster Constabulary and the Garda Siochana work closely together, facing as they do a common terrorist threat. That has, unquestionably, saved lives on both sides of the border.
In the past year, considerable progress has been made towards tackling deficiencies in the extradition arrange-ments between our two countries. The two Governments are resolute and stand shoulder to shoulder in their rejection of violence.
By far the most significant development in the past year has, of course, been the joint declaration. That represents a public commitment by the two Governments to a shared understanding of the political realities in Ireland today, and to a common approach to the problems of Northern Ireland, based on the principles of democracy and consent. It has the overwhelming endorsement of the people of Ireland, north and south, and the strong support of the British public.
The joint declaration has put the spotlight on the terrorists and their apologists. It must now be clear to everyone that there can be no excuse—no justification whatsoever—for political violence in this democracy. The joint declaration acknowledges and safeguards the interests of both sides of the community in Northern Ireland, according parity of esteem to each. There is no compromise on any issue of principle that is essential to the position of either tradition.
I return to the performance of the economy in Northern Ireland in the past year. Once again, there is good news to report. The economy has come through the recession well, and is performing strongly in the recovery. A few statistics serve to illustrate the picture.
Manufacturing output continued the strong performance of the previous year, growing by 3.6 per cent. during 1993 compared with growth of 1.6 per cent. for the entire United Kingdom. In the year to May 1994, unemployment fell by 5.2 per cent. and, at 13.1 per cent., is the lowest for three years. Of course, those levels are still far too high, and we shall continue our efforts to reduce them further.
The Industrial Development Board had one of its most successful years in 1993–94, promoting a record 2,309 inward investment jobs. Since April, two further major projects have been announced—the offer by TransTec from Great Britain of 181 new jobs in Londonderry, and the proposal of Hualon from Taiwan to create 1,800 new jobs near Belfast, with another 500 or so jobs associated with the construction.
I can also report some impressive results from the small business sector, for which the Local Enterprise Development Unit is responsible. The year 1993–94 was a record year, with more than 1,300 new businesses established. The continuing success of Northern Ireland Electricity Plc, and news of another record-breaking year for tourism in Northern Ireland, add to the general atmosphere of optimism on the economy.
Finally, on social development, the "making Belfast work" initiative, which began in 1988 as a direct response on the part of the Government to the deep-rooted deprivation in parts of Belfast on both sides of the community, has continued to provide many employment


and training opportunities. Parts of Belfast and of the rest of the Province face high levels of long-term unemployment; 60 per cent. of those who are unemployed have been so for at least one year, compared with 35 per cent. in the rest of the United Kingdom. Such unemployment is a blight, affecting the hopes of the people on both sides of the community, and we are actively taking steps to deal with it wherever it occurs.
For all its initiatives, "making Belfast work" has, in this financial year alone, received a further £24.6 million. That represents an increase of £1 million on the allocation for 1993–94. On 26 April, I gave a commitment that the initiative would run for at least another three years.
I conclude by looking to the future. I have faith in a better future for Northern Ireland. I think that we now have an unparalleled opportunity for peace and stability. The joint declaration created a new context for political progress and has met with support across the community in Northern Ireland, and nationally and internationally. Sinn Fein now knows how it can enter the political process. It should renounce violence now and join in the political process. But whatever it decides, we shall carry on, with or without Sinn Fein.
We shall carry on working with the Irish Government for the shared understanding about which I have spoken, which is most likely to produce a settlement. We shall continue to talk to the main Northern Ireland constitutional parties, with a view to securing an agreed settlement. We shall maintain the political momentum. We shall, with the Irish Government, resolutely continue to fight terrorism.
This is a different picture from that of a year ago. We have further rational grounds for hope that, through consent and democracy, a settlement will be reached. Until that happens, however, Northern Ireland should remain under direct rule, so I commend the order to the House.

Mr. Kevin McNamara: I join the Secretary of State in extending our support to the security forces and to all who are engaged in impartially upholding the rule of law in Northern Ireland. They deserve our support; too often they deserve and receive our sympathy when they suffer casualties and bereavements.
Like the Secretary of State, I regret the fact that we are again debating an extension of direct rule in Northern Ireland. It is a palpable sign of failure on the part of politicians that we have been unable to address and, if not solve the problem, at least arrive at a settlement that would be acceptable to the peoples of Ireland, Northern Ireland and all these islands.
No party in this House or in Ireland views direct rule as a solution to the problem in Northern Ireland. The fact that we are again renewing the status quo merely serves to underline our collective failure in Britain and Ireland to find a constitutional settlement that has widespread support in both communities.
We regret the need to renew the Northern Ireland Act, but we must also object to the ridiculously short time that we have to debate it today. The lack of time granted by the Government for this debate represents their failure to acknowledge the gravity of the political situation in Northern Ireland. The recent spate of killings, and especially the atrocities at Loughinisland, highlight the urgent need to find a political settlement.

Mr. James Molyneaux: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman would want correctly to describe why we have this amount of time. We had assumed that we would be given three hours—in other words, half a day—for the debate, but owing to a misunderstanding, and because the agenda was switched at least three times towards the end of last week, I was given to understand that the official Opposition wanted a vote on the second motion, which is why the debate was truncated. I am not accusing the Labour party; I am just explaining what happened. It is, as the hon. Gentleman says, regrettable.

Mr. McNamara: I am glad that our wish to have a vote on the second order, which we regard as most important, has been met. It was, however, foisted on the Opposition and on the House with no warning, and after the shadow Cabinet had discussed the business for the week. I need not pursue that matter further other than to say that as we have only a short time for the debate I shall seek to keep my remarks relatively brief so that all those hon. Members who wish to speak may do so.
The British and the Irish Governments must continue to work together to agree a joint framework document to put to the constitutional parties in Northern Ireland. Under article 2 of the Anglo-Irish Agreement, the two Governments have pledged to make determined efforts to resolve any differences. It is vital that both Governments remain united in pursuit of a settlement which grants parity of esteem to the aspirations and beliefs of both communities in Northern Ireland.
I hope that the Minister of State, when he replies to the debate, will be able to give the House the timetable for the joint framework document and say whether the date of the proposed Prime Ministerial summit has been put back to the end of July or is still on course for about the third week of July. Will he also say whether the nub of the disagreement between the two Governments is the nature and powers of cross-border institutions and whether any framework document which is agreed will be published so that the people of Britain and Ireland can also judge the proposals? I realise, of course, that they will have to go to the parties first, but it should be possible for the people most concerned, the people in Northern Ireland, to see what the two Governments are discussing.
The Labour party's policy is to support the concept of a united Ireland by consent. That policy has been endorsed by successive party conferences since 1981. However, the Labour party would not seek to impose that policy preference on the peoples of Ireland. The Labour party would and should accept any agreement which has the support of the people of Ireland, north and south.
Therefore, we welcomed the British Government's commitment in the joint declaration to give legislative effect to any measure of agreement on the future relationships in Ireland which the people living in Ireland themselves freely determine without external impediment.
We hope that the inter-party talks can be resumed at the earliest possible date, based upon the principles contained in the joint declaration. We particularly welcome the Secretary of State's statement, in relation to Sinn Fein's questions, that the only condition to be met in order to arrive at any discussion of the future of Ireland and Northern Ireland is a permanent cessation of violence. That is of the utmost importance.
I welcome also the fact that the Secretary of State said today that the talks should maintain the three-strand


structure agreed in 1991 covering the relationships between the communities within Northern Ireland, between Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland, and between Britain and Ireland. The principle that nothing is agreed until everything is agreed must be maintained. Agreement must be reached on each of the strands before any strand is implemented.
In particular, strand 1, dealing with relations within Northern Ireland, cannot be decoupled from strands 2 and 3. The Secretary of State made that clear today. Each strand is interlocked and interrelated. The establishment of a Northern Ireland Assembly without agreed cross-border institutions would not be a viable option.
We are in favour of the establishment of a devolved power-sharing Assembly for Northern Ireland in the context of the wider constitutional settlement. It would ensure greater direct accountability for the peoples of Northern Ireland and a more democratic decision-making process. A power-sharing Assembly should help to improve relations between the communities as parties would be encouraged to work together co-operatively to improve the conditions of all Northern Ireland citizens.
An Assembly with genuine power-sharing mechanisms can guarantee that the voice of the minority community will be heard. As the Secretary of State has asserted in the past, there can be no return to simple majoritarian rule. That excludes both the Stormont-type regime and a system which is based on pure proportionality. A Northern Ireland Assembly cannot be successfully established in isolation. It must be part of a settlement that grants parity of esteem to the nationalist community and includes an institution-nalised Irish dimension.

Rev. Ian Paisley: I do not know whether I caught the hon. Gentleman's words right, but did he say that there can be no majority rule and no proportional majority rule?

Mr. McNamara: The point that I am making is that there has to be power sharing; that majority rule such as there was in the old Stormont is not acceptable. I do not think that anyone expects to see that return. A system based on pure proportionality, which would not mean equality between the communities, would also not be acceptable.

Mr. John D. Taylor: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. McNamara: No, I will not give way to the right hon. Gentleman. [Hon. Members: "Why not?"] Because I saw the way that he behaved the other night.
There can be no purely internal settlement because the Northern Ireland conflict is not primarily internal to Northern Ireland—it has an external dimension. Presently, a majority in Northern Ireland define themselves as British citizens and want to remain within the United Kingdom, while a large and growing minority see themselves as Irish and want to be constitutionally and institutionally linked to the Republic of Ireland.
Almost 40 per cent. of the Northern Ireland electorate voted for nationalist parties in the European election. If we are to have peace in these islands, the British and Irish dimensions of the conflict must be recognised. Northern Ireland is the site of two competing sovereignty claims. Both Britain and Ireland have conflicting title deeds. Under

the Government of Ireland Act 1920 as amended, the British Government claim unqualified sovereignty over Northern Ireland. On the basis of that claim, the Secretary of State is allegedly still pressing for amendment of article 1 of the Anglo-Irish Agreement explicitly to define Northern Ireland as an integral part of the United Kingdom.
Under articles 2 and 3 of the Irish constitution, the Republic claims Northern Ireland as part of its natural territory. Those articles do not represent an aggressive territorial claim on another nation state because article 29 of the Irish constitution specifically commits the Irish state
to the principle of the pacific settlement of international disputes".
Articles 2 and 3 represent a symbolic expression of the legitimate aspirations of 40 per cent. of the Northern Ireland electorate, while section 75 of the Government of Ireland Act 1920 expresses the national allegiances of 60 per cent. of the electorate. The British and Irish territorial claims mirror and entrench the divided allegiances in Northern Ireland.

Mr. David Trimble: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. McNamara: No, I will not give way. [Hon. Members: "Why not?"] Because other hon. Members want to contribute to the debate, for which only one and a half hours is allowed. If they are lucky enough to catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker, they will have an opportunity to make their observations on my remarks.
Articles 2 and 3 of the 1920 Act as amended are now on the negotiating table. That represents a major breakthrough in British-Irish relations, because both Governments appear to recognise the need for balanced constitutional settlement. Both territorial claims must be addressed if we are to seek to resolve the conflicting national aspirations of the peoples of Northern Ireland.
It must be recognised that amending articles 2 and 3 is a decision for the Irish people and is not within the gift of the Irish Government, and that a referendum on articles 2 and 3 is unlikely to be passed except as part of a wider settlement that the people of the Republic believe is acceptable to northern nationalists.
The right of the Unionist community to remain in the United Kingdom while they form the majority in Northern Ireland has been recognised by the British and Irish in the Anglo-Irish Agreement—a binding international treaty—and, recently, in the joint declaration. The Unionist population have a cast-iron guarantee that Northern Ireland will not be united with the rest of Ireland without the consent of a majority in Northern Ireland. In return for the security that that guarantee grants, the Unionist population, both Governments and the nationalist population of Northern Ireland are entitled to expect some flexibility from Unionist. politicians, and recognition of the nationalist identity and the aspirations that they believe should be given institutional expression.
A no-surrender mentality can never bring reconciliation. We will see a resolution of the conflict only when all parties recognise that we are not playing a zero sum game. It is possible to compromise without losing one's cause or beliefs. All sides gain if there is a permanent cessation of violence and an accommodation of differences.
The Labour party believes that there must be some form of institutionalised Irish dimension in any political settlement. Formal and institutional recognition must be given to the sense of Irish identity held in the nationalist


community. Institutions must be established that allow authority, power and responsibility to be shared between the peoples of Northern Ireland in full co-operation with the Governments of the United Kingdom and the Republic of Ireland. There should be no transfer of sovereignty without the consent of a majority in Northern Ireland, but the British and Irish Governments must share responsibil-ity for developing a constitutional framework for a political settlement in the absence of agreement in Northern Ireland.
The joint declaration by the British and Irish Governments contains principles that should form the basis of a just and durable settlement for the peoples of Northern Ireland. The Labour party would prefer the agreement to be made between the parties in Northern Ireland on a constitutional settlement that secures widespread support; but no party or organisation has the right to hinder political progress. As the Secretary of State said in his reply to the Sinn Fein questionnaire, no party has a veto.
If the constitutional parties are unable to resolve their differences, the two Governments have a duty to the citizens of these islands to address the underlying causes of the conflict and agree a settlement that grants both communities rights and aspirations, parity of esteem and practical expression. We believe that those should be the principles underlying the discussions that will take place between the parties, and the underlying and underpinning matters contained in the framework document that the two Governments will present.
Following the expressions of hope that we have heard from the Secretary of State, I myself hope that this may yet be the last time we have to ask the House—regretfully—to renew the legislation.

Mr. Andrew Hunter: I shall be brief. The main themes of the argument have been well rehearsed and do not require detailed re-presentation, and other hon. Members wish to speak.
There is no viable or responsible alternative to endorsing the extension order; to do otherwise would be to plunge the government of Northern Ireland into chaos. That is not to say that we warmly welcome and embrace the continuation of direct rule. There are many manifestations of its defects—of the democratic deficit—and we look to the creation of circumstances in which the order can be consigned to history. That is a major objective of Government policy.
I hope that my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State is fully aware of the strength and depth of Conservative support for the policy that he is pursuing. That policy has three main pillars, all of which deserve the plaudits that they are receiving. The first is the constitutional guarantee that Northern Ireland is de facto and de jure part of the United Kingdom, because that is the democratically expressed wish of the majority, and will remain so as long as that is the case. On the other hand, we accept the entire legitimacy of nationalist politicians who seek a united Ireland. Let that debate be resolved through the democratic process.
The constitutional guarantee, endorsed by the Republic of Ireland, is therefore the first pillar of Government policy that deserves support. The second is the strong emphasis on seeking agreement on the structures of government in Northern Ireland, and related matters, through consent.

There is no room for coercion. In the not very recent past, we had three-strand talks: there were three strands because there are three relevant sets of relations. We welcome the fact that the Government are seeking to recreate a climate in which meaningful talks can take place between the constitutional parties of Northern Ireland and we especially welcome the Minister of State's quoted statement that
Nothing will emerge as a result of the talks process that will fail the fundamental test of widespread agreement.
Consent is the only way forward. We interpret that as a statement in crude shorthand that both sides of the major political divide in Northern Ireland have the right to object to, or accept, whatever may emerge from the talks process.

Mr. Winnick: No one disputes the right of the majority in Northern Ireland. My hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, North (Mr. McNamara) made that perfectly clear: in no way does he dispute the right of the majority not to be forced into a united Ireland.
Does the hon. Gentleman accept, however, that there can be no veto on other matters either when two Governments can reach agreement—as is quite likely, and as we hope that they will—on various questions, including joint bodies, and when sovereignty is not an issue? As with the Anglo-Irish Agreement of 1985, the two Governments should be in a position to decide on matters where there is no question of sovereignty being taken from the people of Northern Ireland.

Mr. Hunter: I am not sure that the hon. Gentleman is directing that question to the right person; I think that it should probably be fielded by the Secretary of State or a Minister of State. As I see it, the principle is clear, having been agreed by the Governments of both the United Kingdom and the Republic of Ireland. There is no room for coercion on any matter: widespread agreement is the only way forward. It is perhaps simplistic to speak in terms of a veto, although I acknowledge that I did so briefly a moment ago. We must look for a consensus of constitutional, responsible feeling and thought, emerging from a meaningful negotiation. We are not predetermining anything: nothing is ruled in and nothing is ruled out, as the saying goes.

Rev. Ian Paisley: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Hunter: I will, but I must then proceed with my speech.

Rev. Ian Paisley: Would the hon. Gentleman care to answer a simple question that many people in Northern Ireland are asking today? What consent was sought from the majority in Northern Ireland to the Anglo-Irish Agreement?

Mr. Hunter: I will not answer that question, because I regard it as irrelevant to the debate. The Anglo-Irish Agreement exists, and many of us—not least Lady Thatcher—are on record as expressing some misgivings about that. For many reasons, would that we were not starting where we are, but we cannot do other than seek a meaningful debate on the basis of our present position. I shall therefore deliberately turn my back on the hon. Gentleman's question.
I have spoken of two pillars of policy that I strongly applaud—the constitutional guarantee, and the search for a meaningful dialogue and settlement of the structures in Northern Ireland. The third pillar is the uncompromising and uncompromised pursuit of the fight against terrorism.


That involves a constant process of revaluation: are we really sure that we are devoting enough resources to the task, and are they being used in the optimum manner? Are the structures of intelligence-gathering right, and are they properly co-ordinated?
Then there is the question of the involvement of the Republic. We seek ever greater commitment and co-operation, while acknowledging the real progress that has been made in recent years. Those are questions that must be asked, and the Government are asking them.

Lady Olga Maitland: Does my hon. Friend agree that it is essential for all parties in the House fully to support the fight against terrorism? Is it not very disappointing that Opposition Members—the right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn) and the hon. Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn)—have hosted a meeting with Sinn Fein members in the Houses of Parliament? That is the very body that promotes bloody terrorism. Does my hon. Friend agree that we must all work with one mind?

Mr. Hunter: I certainly agree with the last point. I repeat that I have no doubt whatever that all hon. Members are dedicated to the fight against terrorism. My quarrel with the Labour party is that its reasoning is wrong. I do not for a moment doubt its opposition to terrorism, but I believe that its assessment of how the fight should be conducted is inadequate.
I make one final point about dealing with terrorism. We have recently been presented with what I choose to call the Annesley-Trimble proposals, referring to the hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble). Serious questions have been posed about the admissibility of hearsay and electronically gathered evidence, redefining the right to silence, re-examining the supergrass syndrome and considering greater protection for witnesses. Those are important points. I am not sure that the hon. Member for Upper Bann has necessarily got everything entirely right, but many Conservative Members listened carefully to what he said and look forward to the on-going debate under those headings.
As I have said, there is no alternative other than to endorse the extension order. I believe that the Government should receive, deservedly, applause for the overall strategy that they are pursuing in Northern Ireland matters.

Mr. James Molyneaux: I know that some will take the view that Unionist representatives were wrong to decide to open up discussions after the general election in 1987 with the freshly re-elected Government to see if it would be possible to find an alternative to and replacement for the Anglo-Irish Agreement of 1985 which, as has already been said, is now recognised as one of the great miscalculations in British history.
On balance, but only on balance, I think that we were right to try the path of discussion and negotiation, particularly since, as a pro-Union community—the greater proportion of people in Northern Ireland—we had solidly made manifest our opposition to the Anglo-Irish Agreement.
In the five years from 1987 to 1992, it looked for a while as though we were assured of a fair and honourable

response, but by mid-1992 it was apparent that our willingness to talk had been construed in some quarters as weakness. The final disappointment came in November 1992 when the two Governments decided to terminate—that was the word—the three-strand talks. In the three weeks before Christmas 1992, agents established contact with terrorist leaders. That was common knowledge in the early part of last year and was pointed out by my hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, South (Rev. Martin Smyth) in the House on 13 July last year.
The three weeks before Christmas 1992 were an important reference point, proving conclusively that muscle men were to be placed on a par with democratically elected parties. The signal was clearly understood by the greater number of people in Northern Ireland and it became—and remains—a major obstacle to the launch of new high-level talks and it casts a shadow over the low-key discussions, patiently and ably steered and chaired since September last year by the Minister responsible for political development, the hon. Member for Devizes (Mr. Ancram). I cannot help feeling that the Minister is not being helped by Dublin's insistence that new talks must be the same high profile, high wire act which was such a monumental failure before.
Irish Ministers also insist that the guidelines to which we all submitted and subscribed on 26 March 1991 be rigidly observed, particularly the three-strand structure. Some hon. Members have taken the same line. Very well. But that formula specified a sequence, commencing with strand 1, which dealt with an internal structure for the better governance of Northern Ireland. It was always agreed that such an internal structure would be broadly approved and banked—that was the word—before moving on to the strand 2 discussions, concerning relations between the new Stormont structure and an Irish Government.
Now, Dublin Ministers are ignoring the fact that they are breaching the agreed guidelines by ignoring the sequence pattern and by making unhelpful public pronouncements on all three strands at once. Worse still, they seem determined to devise an alternative framework that is presumably designed to be a different agenda from that which was approved and agreed in 1991 by all prospective participants.

Mr. Seamus Mallon: I must quarrel with the point that the right hon. Gentleman has just made. In the last negotiations, which, as he said, centred on the strand 1 section, the right hon. Gentleman's colleague the hon. Member for Fermanagh and South Tyrone (Mr. Maginnis) presented a paper on the same type of north-south arrangements about which the right hon. Gentleman is now speaking. There was no arbitrary division between the discussions on strand 1 and the other elements of discussion, as was proved by the right hon. Gentleman's party in its presentation of that paper.

Mr. Molyneaux: I will be charitable to the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh (Mr. Mallon), as his memory is at fault. He will recall that a team from his party —authorised by its leader, the hon. Member for Foyle (Mr. Hume)—engaged with representatives of the other parties in the working party which drew up a model for a devolved internal government.

Mr. John Hume: Not true.

Mr. Molyneaux: I shall go further in a minute.
The leader of the Social Democratic and Labour party entered certain reservations that he declined to remove until he could see the shape of the strand 2 agenda. Other party leaders will remember that we rescued the talks from a complete breakdown at the end of the strand 1 discussions. In the Queen Elizabeth II building across the road we suggested that we jump prematurely into strand 2 so that at least the hon. Member for Foyle—I do not know whether the other members of his party took the same view—could see the shape of the agenda. At the end of strand 2 discussions, in an effort to breathe life into the negotiations, papers were submitted on the last day of the session. That was a different operation.

Mr. Mallon: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for giving way so that we can test both our memories. In effect, there was no such thing as an agreed paper by any section of those involved in the talks. A discussion paper was presented to the plenary session, but it was never adopted. It was noted, but it had no more status than that.

Mr. Molyneaux: The records will show that agreement was reached by representatives of the hon. Gentleman's party on the shape and structure of the new Stormont assembly. It was held up and we did not press it because the hon. Member for Foyle had entered reservations which he did not withdraw.
The new agenda—what the Irish Government seemed to be proposing—steered the discussions away from the priority of finding agreement on an internal arrangement for co-operation between legitimate constitutional parties in Northern Ireland and the administration of the affairs of the people of the Province towards an altogether different objective of joint sovereignty, within which framework the internal governance of Northern Ireland would be allocated a place, presumably given assurances of good behaviour on our part. As was made clear in the authentic Irish Government paper of 19 November 1993, the internal government structure could be demolished at any time by the said joint authority.
The way was paved for all this in the SDLP submission to what we might call, if the Secretary of State will forgive me, the Mayhew talks in 1992. That submission confirmed that equality or civil rights were not the main concern. In reference to the Unionist proposals, the SDLP said:
While in general terms, such proposals might be both acceptable and sufficient in a society in which equality of treatment for minorities was the only issue, they are not sufficient in a society in which allegiance is a central problem.
It would appear that the central problem of allegiance can be resolved only by some form of joint authority. The House should be aware of the implications of this because the House will be involved. Joint authority must extend to a greater land mass than the six counties of Northern Ireland because there are many millions of Irish citizens living and working in England who, in various ways, owe allegiance to the Irish Republic.
It follows, in pure logic, that joint authority must have common application to the entire British Isles, so it seems that we are back to the Act of Union as a model of common citizenship and shared sovereignty. That will not only put a stopper on any form of devolution anywhere in the United Kingdom; it will remove at a stroke what is essentially a home rule structure in Dublin, retracing its steps to resume its honoured place in the British nation.

However presented, packaged or devised, any form of joint authority must terminate in British Isles unity, because there is no halfway house.
I am indebted to the Cadogan Group of academics for the list of solid reasons why the Reynolds ambition of a joint authority would be unworkable. They state, first:
It is impracticable. There is no modern precedent for it, and most schemes put forward for Northern Ireland look unworkably complex.
It is impermanent. Many proposals are either explicitly or implicitly put forward as transitional stages towards a greater degree of Irish unity.
It is unbalanced. Fundamental to the concept is the supposition that the British Government has the same relationship with unionists as Dublin has with nationalists. This is not so.
It is undemocratic. It tends to isolate the governors from the governed, leaving the administration remote from and unrepresentative of the people of Northern Ireland.
It is almost impossible to finance on a permanent basis. All schemes assume that the very high costs involved would be paid by Britain or by external sources. No proposal suggests that British financial support would necessarily prove permanent.
We would add merely that joint authority, however it is disguised, amounts to a change in the constitutional status of Northern Ireland. It is even contrary to the principle stated in the Downing street declaration. The principle of consent for the people of Northern Ireland, of all faiths and none, is the single most important element in the declaration. That consent is the governing principle in all future arrangements for governing Northern Ireland. That is made clear by the fact that the American Government have underwritten the importance of consent.
It has been common ground among the Northern Ireland parties, at least since 1975, that there should be a Bill of Rights based on the European convention, yet it has also been recognised that, because the convention refers only to individual human rights, which are necessarily qualified, the convention does not fully meet the need. In particular, it does not refer to the rights of communities or minorities.
In recent years, those collective rights have been addressed by the Conference on Security and Co-operation in Europe through the development of the human dimension in the Vienna accord and the charter of Paris. The latter states the principle, which has been worked out in some detail and is mentioned in the fifth paragraph of the charter. It states:
We affirm that the ethnic, cultural, linguistic and religious identity of national minorities will be protected and that persons belonging to national minorities have the right to freely express, preserve and develop that identity without any discrimination and in full equality before the law.
Those standards should regulate the relationship between Britain and Ireland and should safeguard the rights of minorities in each state. Any new agreement between the British and Irish Government to replace the 1985 Anglo-Irish Agreement or any new institutions of government in Northern Ireland should conform to those standards.
The way in which those standards would be implemented or enforced presents problems. The standards are not really justiciable and would not be suitable for court-type procedures as in many cases they represent the best administrative practice. Regard should also be paid to the first steps taken by the CSCE on implementation, which have taken the form of intergovernmental administrative procedures rather than court-enforced legal procedures. It may be considered appropriate to ensure that


any implementation provisions in any new agreement are compatible with those that the two Governments have agreed should apply throughout Europe.
Her Majesty's Government have a clear duty urgently to tackle the democratic deficit in Northern Ireland. In "Blueprint for Stability", we have set out what we and many others regard as a fair and practical method of doing that. The second motion on the Order Paper deals with a change in the structure of the governance of Northern Ireland, which appears not to have been subject to the formula
nothing is agreed until everything is agreed".
The Government are just getting on with it.
I say, with great respect, that Ministers must go further and faster down the road to the restoration of accountable democracy in the Province, where about a third of the population—Protestants and Roman Catholic—fall into the middle-class category. Last weekend, a Sunday newspaper of repute reported rumours of middle-class financial assistance to Loyalist paramilitaries. I warned precisely of that problem during the Queen's Speech debate last November. It is vital that the middle classes do not fall prey to the same disenchantment that has become the norm in so-called working-class Ulster. The House cannot pretend that suspicion does not exist. It must be removed by action, and the time for action is now.

Rev. Ian Paisley: On Monday in the House, I asked the Prime Minister a question that was relevant to the constitutional talks in Northern Ireland. It appears in column 561 of Monday's Hansard. The thrust of my question was how was it that, if strand 1 talks were to take place again in the same sense as they had taken place in the past, after his talks with the Prime Minister of the Dublin Government, the Prime Minister announced that they had discussed strands 1, 2 and 3. The Prime Minister replied:
No, my discussions with the Irish Prime Minister were not about strand 1, which has been the subject of discussions between the British Government and the constitutional parties in Northern Ireland. My discussions with the Irish Prime Minister related to political strands 2 and 3. We still have not achieved agreement, but we are making progress. We have commissioned further work."—[Official Report, 27 June 1994; Vol. 245, c. 561–62.]
I went to the BBC and obtained a transcript of what the Prime Minister said in Corfu. He stated that there was
an impediment to progress for a very long time. The question of joint authority is not on the table, what is on the table is a series of things in strand one, strand two and strand three".
At the talks with the Prime Minister of the Dublin Government, the Prime Minister discussed strand 1, 2 and 3, but he said in the House that they had not discussed strand 1.
The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland made a plea for people in Northern Ireland to believe in him; to believe in the Government and to believe in the credibility, integrity and honesty of what they state. When the people of Northern Ireland see night after night the Dublin Prime Minister and the Minister for Foreign Affairs reiterating the very opposite of what the Secretary of State seems to be saying, and what the Prime Minister at times is saying, how can they trust?
My next quotation comes from the right hon. Member for Strangford (Mr. Taylor), who was also speaking on Monday, discussing joint authority. I shall quote from the transcript:
Joint authority for Northern Ireland—in other words flying the tricolour and the union jack over Belfast city hall. The Secretary of State is going to agree to something even worse; he is going to agree that Northern Ireland and the Republic will be controlled by all-Ireland authorities which will have executive powers over the internal affairs of Northern Ireland. So the man is trying to deceive the Unionist community, and it is time he was exposed.
My attitude, the attitude of my party and the attitude of the majority of unionist electors at the recent elections endorsed that view—that something was afoot.
When he was in America, the Prime Minister of the Irish Republic could not hold himself in; he made a statement that was carried in the Irish Times and that formed the basis of a news editorial in the Daily Telegraph on 23 June. The Daily Telegraph's editorials do not often say things with which I agree, but on that occasion it said:
Speaking in the United States, he"—
that is, the Taoiseach—
indicated that Dublin would contemplate dropping Articles II and III of its constitution, which lay claim to the North, only in return for a North-South body that would exercise "executive powers" over aspects of Northern Ireland's government…
This is a dangerous pretence. The Unionists are entitled to reject Mr. Reynolds's notions out of hand. If such a plan was ever implemented, the Loyalists of the Shankill Road would perceive it as a Republican victory won by terrorism, and probably respond in kind. The IRA, meanwhile, would perceive it as an encouraging halfway house, endorsing their legitimacy. Only John Hume's Nationalist SDLP would wholeheartedly welcome such an arrangement. That would be scant consolation indeed for the British Government, which would have to pick up the pieces as yet another constitutional experiment ended in bloodshed and tears across the province…
But in the meantime, it is deeply irresponsible of Dublin to allow the tail to wag the dog. Articles II and III are at the root of the Irish problem. They embody and perpetuate Unionist distrust of the South. Their removal should be viewed by Dublin not as the culmination of any peace process, but as its starting point." And that is where we need to start today.
I am amazed that the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North (Mr. McNamara), leading for Her Majesty's Opposition, put forward at the Dispatch Box a defence of something that is not only illegal under international law and criminal under practical law, but immoral—the defence of articles 2 and 3. The hon. Gentleman knows well that those articles have no standing in any international court, and no standing in law. If the southern Government thought that they had any standing in an international court, they would have taken them there long ago.

Rev. William McCrea: Surely my hon. Friend will agree that the only people who will be delighted by the speech made by the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North (Mr. McNamara) at the Dispatch Box—especially the part about the rigged democracy that he suggests for the people of Northern Ireland and the part about sovereignty—will be the terrorists and the republican propagandists.

Rev. Ian Paisley: Yes, I was coming to that.
First we find the Labour party spokesman attacking any concept of majority rule in Northern Ireland. He says, "You cannot have majority rule." That is very different from the Taoiseach's concept of majority rule. At his meeting with the Irish Association in Dublin on 10


January, Albert Reynolds was asked if he would consider a 51 per cent. majority in favour of Irish unity as sufficient consent for change. He replied:
not 51 per cent.—50 per cent. plus one".
So there are two standards. The standard for the south is a majority, but Northern Ireland cannot have majority rule—

Mr. Mallon: rose—

Rev. Ian Paisley: I cannot give way, because of the time. I have made a promise and I shall try to keep to it.

Mr. Mallon: Will the hon. Gentleman give way on that particular point?

Rev. Ian Paisley: No. I made a promise and I have to keep to it. I regret not being able to give way. We should have had plenty of time to discuss the matter.
The hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North went further. I intervened and he graciously gave way to me, although he may be sorry that he did so. Now he says that we cannot have proportional majority rule either. If certain segments of a Northern Ireland assembly formed a coalition and achieved a majority, that would not be allowed either. The hon. Gentleman's idea is to elevate a minority into the same area of equality as the real majority. That is what this is all about. How can there be a settlement on those terms? It is absolutely impossible.
Of course, the Secretary of State talks about consent. I find that revolting to the people of Northern Ireland. What consent was asked of the people of Northern Ireland for the Anglo-Irish Agreement?

Mr. Tom King: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Rev. Ian Paisley: I shall not give way. I say to the right hon. Gentleman, who when he was Secretary of State for Northern Ireland presided over that awful situation, that he knew in practical values what consent was achieved. There was no consent to the Anglo-Irish Agreement. We were not asked to give consent. He himself said that, although people had resigned their seats, the Government did not care what the results of the elections were—the result of the Anglo-Irish Agreement was here to stay. That is what he thinks of democracy. We have been through all that.
What sort of assembly shall we have if we cannot have majority rule, or even proportional majority rule? It is a system that cannot work. And of course, people have a vested interest in seeing that it does not work.
What about the matter of consent? The hon. Member for Basingstoke (Mr. Hunter) told us that there was a great pillar—

Mr. Mallon: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Rev. Ian Paisley: No.
The hon. Member for Basingstoke said that the pillar of that wonderful consent was something about which we should be very glad. I would like to think that the people of Northern Ireland alone would have the opportunity to give their consent. But while the Secretary of State stands up in the House and tells us, "Oh yes, it is the people of Northern Ireland alone who will have the right to give consent," out in America, the Foreign Minister of the Irish Republic says something entirely different. He says:
We will use all our resources to persuade both communities in Northern Ireland into new arrangements which are honourable in terms of their past, just and fair in terms of the present, and

equally open in terms of the future to whatever political model commands consent across the entire spectrum of the Irish people.
He makes it absolutely clear that it is nothing to do with the people of Northern Ireland.
That view was tested by me at Hillsborough house when the right hon. Member for Lagan Valley (Mr. Molyneaux), the leader of the Ulster Unionists, was present, as were the leader of the Alliance party and the hon. Member for Foyle (Mr. Hume), the leader of the Social Democratic and Labour party. I said, "You can have a settlement in Northern Ireland, Prime Minister, by going to the people now and asking the question that is asked in the border poll legislation, and let the people settle it." The other three leaders all agreed with the Prime Minister that there should be no going to people on the border poll legislation, so the people will not have that opportunity.
I was not in the House after the election when the Secretary of State said that the people had given their consent because in the election, the majority of people voted for the Downing street declaration and the peace process, or at least were to some extent quiescent about it. One can see how ridiculous that is by reading the manifestos of those standing, as I did. I heard the hon. Member for Foyle say that the election had nothing to do with the peace process and that I should not even be permitted to bring in the matter because it had nothing to do with the election, which was about Europe. What is more, the Ulster Unionist party took a similar attitude on the matter.
One candidate did not take that attitude—the Conservative candidate. Let us look at the vote that was recorded for the Conservative candidate, who was ably canvassed for by the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland. She got 5,583 votes—0.99 per cent. of the entire vote of the Province. Yet the Government then say that there is consent. There is no consent in Northern Ireland.

Mr. Mallon: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Rev. Ian Paisley: No, I will not give way. The hon. Gentleman knows that because I have already told him.

Mr. Mallon: The hon. Gentleman knows what I want to ask. That is why he will not give way.

Rev. Ian Paisley: I do not.

Rev. William McCrea: You never made him afraid before, Seamus, and you will not do it now.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Geoffrey Lofthouse): Order.

Rev. Ian Paisley: The matter today is all-important to the people of Northern Ireland because if we are not to have the solid rock of democratic principles as a base, we will not have this shamrock of a Downing street declaration. If we do not have the solid rock of democratic principles, we shall not proceed very far.
Is there any House in the world where the main Opposition spokesman would get up and talk as we have heard the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North talk today? He said that we could not have even proportional representation. He should tell South Africa that it should not have proportional representation because it is not democratic. He says that we cannot have majority rule and, therefore, that we cannot have proportional representation.
The issue will have to be decided by the choice of the people. Mr. Churchill used to say, "Trust the people." Why will the people of Northern Ireland not have the opportunity to decide their own future by the ballot box? I know the reason why. It was given by Garret Fitzgerald in his book, "All in a Life". He says that joint sovereignty is
simply a method that the British Government might choose to adopt in the exercise of its sovereignty in order to regulate the affairs of one part of the Kingdom.
That is what has happened. Joint sovereignty has come in because the British Government are prepared now to share with the Government of the Irish Republic the way in which our country is to be governed and the way in which its future is to be decided. That spells disaster for our Province.
Many people in Northern Ireland are deeply troubled about what happened in the coroner's court concerning the Teban accident. I would like an assurance from the Secretary of State that he will have a careful look at the matter because many hearts that have already been broken will be rent asunder again by what happened in that court, as he knows. I trust that something will be done to mend that.

Mr. John Hume: I will not indulge in the ranting to which we have just listened and which we are fed up with listening to in Northern Ireland. We have heard in today's rant, once again, everything that the hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley) is against and, once again, we have not heard what he is for in dealing with the problem.
As the Secretary of State has pointed out, the order is a reminder that the very first principle of democracy does not exist in Northern Ireland—agreement on how the people are governed. In fact, it has never existed in Northern Ireland. Such agreement is the basis of order in any society. It is self-evident that anyone who wanted to provide the basis for lasting stability would be totally committed to reaching agreement among our divided people.
I very much welcome the fact, therefore, that the Secretary of State and the Government have committed themselves totally to such agreement, together with the Irish Government. It is the duty of all parties to commit themselves to such agreement. Surely at the end of the day, agreement threatens no section of the people. No one doubts that, given the attitudes that exist, such agreement might be difficult to reach, but at least we should give people on the ground hope by being at the table and staying there until we reach agreement. I hope that that will happen soon, that the challenge that has been thrown down by both Governments in the Downing street declaration will be faced up to by everyone and that we can come to the table in an atmosphere where the gun and the bomb have gone for ever.

The Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office (Mr. Michael Ancram): I say to the hon. Member for Foyle (Mr. Hume) that we all share his desire to see a settlement reached and an agreement reached between the parties and, indeed, between the two Governments. That is very much the background to what my right hon. and learned Friend

the Secretary of State said in his opening remarks, and it is certainly very much central to the Government's policy in relation to the political situation in Northern Ireland.
I do not have a great deal of time in which to deal with all the points raised in this short, but very interesting and constructive debate. I shall deal with a few of the specific questions and with one or two of the points which should either be corrected or put into perspective.
The hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North (Mr. McNamara) asked a number of specific questions. He asked first whether I could give an idea of the timetable of the framework document. There are no artificial time constraints in putting together a framework document, and it is important that there are not, because obviously it is a complex matter and we need to take the time needed to achieve agreement, if agreement is possible. So, it would be wrong to say that the document would be ready by a certain date or not ready by another date. I am sure that the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North appreciates that that is the most responsible position we can take on that difficult matter at the moment.
The hon. Gentleman asked again about what he saw to be the nub of disagreement. There are a number of difficult areas, as he would expect, which the two Governments are discussing. It would be totally wrong to try to conduct those discussions in the full glare of publicity. Indeed, to try to do so, I suspect, would make it even more difficult to achieve a meeting of minds. I am therefore sure that, again, he will understand if I do not go into the details of what is being discussed in the talks on the framework document beyond what my right hon. and learned Friend said in his opening remarks.
As to the publication of the framework document, it is obvious that, if we are to achieve the widespread or broad-spread agreement of the people of Northern Ireland at some time, they will have to see and be able to take a view of what is being proposed. Again, it must be a matter for political judgment of when the right time for that to happen is reached.
I very much appreciate the remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Basingstoke (Mr. Hunter). Once again, he has shown not only his great interest but his knowledge of the political situation in the Province, and I thought that his speech was both reasoned and sensible. He underlined, as I shall again, that the bottom line to everything taking place is the need to achieve widespread agreement. That is the practical reality. Our history is littered with the wreckage of imposed solutions.

Mr. Trimble: On that point, may I refer the Minister to the intervention made in the speech of his hon. Friend the Member for Basingstoke by the hon. Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick), in which the latter drew the utterly false distinction between changes which relate only to sovereignty and those which relate to cross-border institutions of a merely administrative nature, which he said would not require consent?
In his reply to the hon. Member for Walsall, North, the Minister's hon. Friend appeared to endorse that view, and confined the requirement of consent to so-called sovereignty changes, and not to the sort of cross-border institutions to which he was referring. I give the Minister the opportunity to correct that, and make it clear that there would be no question of any cross-border institution being created without the freely given consent of the people of Northern Ireland.

Mr. Ancram: We have made it clear, and I make it clear again, that the political settlement, which includes all three strands, not only strand 2, will require the widespread or broad-spread agreement of the people of Northern Ireland. The quotation cited by my right hon. and learned Friend of the Taoiseach's speech at Oxford made it clear that that is also the view of the Irish Government. I can only reiterate that to the hon. Gentleman.
The right hon. Member for Lagan Valley (Mr. Molyneaux) referred to the history of the talks up to November 1992. There is a difference of view about the nature of those talks. In my understanding of what he said, he suggested that there had been a sequential basis to those talks.
I have looked up the original statement in 1991, and it is clear that there was not a sequential system proposed by my right hon. Friend the Member for City of London and Westminster, South (Mr. Brooke), the then Secretary of State. In fact, he was saying at that time that, although the parties would start with strand 1, at a moment which he judged to be appropriate, it would launch into the other two strands.
In a sense, that is rather different from what the right hon. Gentleman was saying. May I say to him again that, when we talk of strand 1 being banked and then looking at strand 2, we are not talking in theory. We have to talk about the practical realities. The practical realities of the situation, as I have learned in the talks over the past year, is that we shall not achieve agreement on strand 1 without achieving agreement on strand 2 as well. There is an inevitable and unavoidable interlocking of all the strands, and it is for that reason—the political reality of the situation—that all those strands have to, and will, be looked at together.
The right hon. Gentleman also called again for us to tackle the democratic deficit. He will understand from what my right hon. and learned Friend said that that is also very much the earnest desire of Her Majesty's Government. However, the way in which that democratic deficit can be tackled and met is by moving the process of dialogue forward, until we reach a situation in which we can achieve a political settlement and within which those institutions can be provided again for the Province.
I shall turn briefly to the speech of the hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley). I am afraid that, again, he

made a number of assertions which bear little connection with reality. He first spoke about joint authority and joint sovereignty. I can only say to him, again, that it is the stated position of both the British and Irish Governments that joint authority is not being considered.
The hon. Gentleman may find that he would have a closer and a better understanding of how the process of dialogue is proceeding if he were to accept my invitation, which I renew today, to come to the talks that I am having with the constitutional parties. He would then begin to see the type of structures that we are discussing to try to achieve a political settlement.
In particular, the hon. Gentleman raised the question of strand 1 and whether that was part of the discussions with the Irish Government. The discussions with the Irish Government, as with the parties, are about the overall package, which includes, by its nature, all three strands. However, we have made it absolutely clear that the specifics of strand 1 are matters for the British Government and the main constitutional parties in Northern Ireland. That has been the position, and it remains the position.
I say again to the hon. Gentleman that he can set up as many Aunt Sallys as he likes, he may draw as many black scenarios as he wishes, but, at the end of the day, they all have to be subjected to the test of acceptability to the people of Northern Ireland. [HON. MEMBERS: "And the House"] And this House. It is for that reason that many of the suggestions which he makes will be shown up for what they are: scare tactics and unhelpful to any settlement being achieved.
I believe that we are moving to a situation in which there is a genuine hope that peace can be achieved and a political settlement can be arrived at. But it will not be advanced by shouted slogans, by wild assertions, by blazing headlines or by megaphone diplomacy. It will be taken forward only by steady progress, careful language and the will among all those who participate to achieve a settlement. We have that goal in mind—not only to achieve the rightful, peaceful life for people in Northern Ireland, but so that we never again have to come back to the House to ask for the order to continue once more.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,
That the draft Northern Ireland Act 1974 (Interim Period Extension) Order 1994, which was laid before this House on 24th May, be approved.

Orders of the Day — Civil Service (Northern Ireland)

The Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office (Mr. Michael Ancram): I beg to move,
That the draft Civil Service (Management Functions) (Northern Ireland) Order 1994, which was laid before this House on 3rd May, be approved.
The order's sole purpose—I emphasise sole purpose—is to allow the Department of Finance and Personnel to delegate to other servants of the Crown its responsibilities for the management of the Northern Ireland civil service. At the end of 1992, Parliament approved the Civil Service (Management Functions) Bill, which enabled the central Departments in the home civil service to delegate their management functions. The order before the House introduces for the Northern Ireland civil service provisions corresponding to the effect of that legislation.
The order is concerned with the way in which civil servants are managed in such matters as pay and grading structures, allowances, promotion, probation, staff appraisal and so on. Under the present arrangements, the DFP has the responsibility for determining those matters for the entirety of 30,000 Northern Ireland civil servants.
In the existing legal framework, the Department of Finance and Personnel has been able to give Departments and agencies some discretion in respect of day-to-day personnel management arrangements. The DFP must continue to exercise general management and control. In the view of the Government, it is not in the interests of good management and efficiency that that constraint should exist.
I want to make it clear, however, that the order has nothing to do with privatisation, market testing or the removal of functions from the public sector, which I know is a concern raised by some Opposition Members when the Civil Service (Management Functions) Bill was being debated. It concerns itself only with the management of the Northern Ireland civil service.
Nor does the order introduce any new powers; rather, it facilitates a redistribution of existing powers. Under the Civil Service (Northern Ireland) Order 1986, the Department of Finance and Personnel is responsible for the general management and control of the Northern Ireland civil service. The proposed legislation will allow powers that are currently discharged centrally to be exercised by managers in Departments and agencies, but within a proper framework of accountability. Recipients of delegations will be made clearly responsible for the exercise of a function, but the ultimate accountability of a Minister to Parliament remains intact.

Mr. David Trimble: I thank the Minister for giving way on the question of delegations and accountability. During the passage of the Civil Service (Management Functions) Bill, the Government gave an important undertaking that they would find a procedure by which an annual report would be made to the House to ensure that the people and, indeed, hon. Members would know what had been delegated and when, and that that accountability could take place.
I should be grateful if the Minister—I do not require an immediate answer; he may deal with it later—could give a similar undertaking that a mechanism will be found,

whether by way of written answer, statement or whatever, to enable us to know what delegations have taken place, so that an account of these matters may be kept.

Mr. Ancram: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for reminding me that that position was set out when the original Bill was passing through the House. Obviously, in general terms, it is our intention to try to reflect the same position with regard to Northern Ireland. I shall check whether any detailed arrangements have been made in that regard, and I will either answer the question towards the end of this debate or write to the hon. Gentleman on the matter.
The delegation of responsibility, which this order permits, will assist the Government's aim of bringing about improved service and better value for money for the citizen through better management of the public service. Even allowing for the difference in scale between the Northern Ireland civil service and its counterpart in Great Britain, it makes no sense to manage such a diverse organisation, engaged in almost the whole range of government, as though it were a single business.
Next steps agencies, which employ almost 9,000 staff in Northern Ireland, are expected to meet clear objectives and targets within given budgets. To insist upon a regime of central management and control where this would have an inhibiting effect is contrary to the desire to achieve the objectives of the organisation concerned to the quality of outputs required. The Northern Ireland civil service takes more than £700 million of taxpayers' money a year in running costs. We must be free to ensure that such a large sum can be used to best effect.
I should perhaps say something about why legislation is needed to achieve the purpose of better management of public services. The Northern Ireland civil service is separate from the home civil service in Great Britain and, until direct rule, it operated under the direction and control of local political institutions. As with the home civil service, the management of the Northern Ireland civil service is a matter within the scope of the royal prerogative.
The power to determine the terms and conditions of civil servants is delegated by the Crown to the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, and is exercisable through the Department of Finance and Personnel. The functions now exercised by that Department have been the subject of orders transferring them in 1975 and 1982; and that parliamentary intervention means that further primary legislation is needed to allow the Department of Finance and Personnel to delegate its management responsibilities to Departments and agencies.
Issues raised by the order were extensively debated during the course of the Civil Service (Management Functions) Bill some 18 months ago. I think that the hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble) was involved in some of those discussions, and he will appreciate that many of these issues were aired at that time. Similar points to many of those raised then have arisen during the consultation process on this order as well: for instance, concerns about accountability, and fragmentation of the civil service.
Although no changes have been made to the substance of the proposed legislation, all the issues brought forward were examined very carefully and responded to in detail. Where a delegation is being taken to introduce changes more suited to the business objectives of a Department or


agency, there will be consultation in the usual way with the staff concerned and their representatives, just as discussions have already taken place with the civil service trade unions about procedures for consultation on delegations. I am pleased to be able to tell the House that those discussions have proceeded satisfactorily.
Fears were also expressed that the high standard of conduct and impartiality of Northern Ireland civil servants, and the service's record in promoting equality of opportunity, might be damaged by an absence of central control. On the contrary; encouraging ownership of responsibility should enhance the strong sense of duty which characterises our civil service in Northern Ireland, and to which I pay a tribute. I can also assure the House that the fundamentals of Government policy in areas such as equality of opportunity will remain inviolate, and essential standards of conduct will, of course, continue to be the subject of whatever central rules are necessary to safeguard them.
I turn briefly to the main provisions of the order. I hope to demonstrate to the House that this is a limited piece of legislation. It enables the Department of Finance and Personnel to make delegations, but does not compel it to do so. Each Department and agency will decide whether having responsibility for management decisions would help to improve its organisational efficiency and performance, so there is no coercion about it.
Article 3 limits delegations to functions related to the personnel management of the Northern Ireland civil service, and permits delegation of those functions only to servants of the Crown. That means that the order cannot be used to transfer management functions outside the public service, and the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland remains fully accountable for those functions.
The Department of Finance and Personnel remains the legal holder of the powers. While the intention is to give managers in Departments and agencies appropriate freedoms, the Department may attach any conditions it considers necessary to a delegation. Furthermore—this is important—it may withdraw a delegation at any time.
There are some civil servants who work in bodies which were created by statute—for example, the Public Record Office and the Land Registry. Their management is not determined by the civil service order because the statute creating the bodies specifies arrangements for the appointment and management of their staff. Typically, the Department of Finance and Personnel is required to approve their terms and conditions of service. Article 4 allows the Department to relinquish central control of the management of those bodies, just as it may do in the case of the rest of the Northern Ireland civil service under Article 3.
The Northern Ireland citizens' charter pledged to improve the standard of service to the public. I know from my own experience that Northern Ireland Departments and agencies are determined to live up to that pledge. This order enables them to have access to management flexibilities to help to achieve that goal, and I commend it to the House.

Mr. Kevin McNamara: On behalf of the Opposition, I wish to oppose the order. As the Minister explained, the main provision in the order allows the Department of Finance and Personnel to

delegate any management function of the Northern Ireland civil service to any servant of the Crown; that is, it enables the Northern Ireland civil service to be dismembered, to reduce pay and conditions and, sadly, to undermine the morale of the civil servants. In common language, what we are looking at is dismemberment of the civil service in Northern Ireland. The implications of the order reach across all civil service Departments and are likely to have adverse effects on standards, accountability and impartiality.
The Government are planning to effect major changes to the structure and workings of the Northern Ireland civil service through an enabling order which pays scant regard to the views of the civil servants themselves and elected Members of this House. Article 3 of the order enables the Department of Finance and Personnel to create a service which is so disparate as to render the concept of a Northern Ireland civil service meaningless.
The provisions in the order highlight the failure of Ministers in the Northern Ireland Office to look at the measures in the unique context of Northern Ireland. Again, in their lust after legislation which has already been passed and applied to Great Britain, Ministers have failed to recognise that the Northern Ireland civil service is a separate service under the Crown, and the unfortunate absence of local democratic oversight, which we have debated this afternoon, adds a distinct dimension to the work of the civil servants in Northern Ireland.
The Northern Ireland civil service is comparatively small and, at approximately 25,000 people, is only the size of a small Government Department in Britain. Yet the Government have gone for complete overkill in trying to treat what amounts to one Government Department in the same way as they have treated the whole of the British civil service.
It is nonsense, and wasteful of taxpayers' resources, to insist that each Department and agency—no matter how small—must have the right to attempt to set up, manage and police its own pay and grading structures, conditions of employment, individual systems for recruiting staff and the personnel and management of staff. Ministers have referred to "unnecessary central control", but managers in the Northern Ireland civil service already enjoy considerable freedom, and there is no evidence that they are clamouring for more flexibility.
If each Department within the Northern Ireland civil service is allowed to go its own separate way in relation to recruitment and promotion of staff and, in consequence, in pay and conditions of employment, the unity of the Northern Ireland civil service could be fundamentally undermined.
The Minister failed to tell the House if the present high standards of impartiality within the Northern Ireland civil service will be guaranteed. Surely numerous delegated bodies operating as arms of the civil service also implies a wide variance in standards. It is vital that the Northern Ireland civil service maintains its reputation for impartiality.
In a divided society, it is essential that the institutions of Government set the highest standards in terms of equality of opportunity in employment and in the provision of service. The Northern Ireland civil service has in recent years provided a model for fair employment provisions and affirmative action programmes. It is only right that the


instruments of government set an example in the implementation of provisions within the Fair Employment Act and the sex discrimination order.
If the order is implemented, such a co-ordinated and centralised approach to equal opportunities would, we believe, be lost. It is generally accepted that, unfortunately, the political situation in Northern Ireland often spills over into the workplace. Personnel management in Northern Ireland is therefore extremely complex and requires a high degree of expertise, both from managers and trade union representatives of employees.
The anti-discrimination legislation to deal with the problem is unique to Northern Ireland. Fair employment practices in Northern Ireland are of national and international political interest, and we are extremely concerned that, by exercising the powers under article 3 of the order, the Department of Finance and Personnel could dissipate the existing expertise to an unacceptable level.
It will be difficult to maintain the current standards under a regime of delegation, because the intention is to keep to a minimum the monitoring at the centre of the Northern Ireland civil service. The Northern Ireland civil service has been actively promoting greater equality of opportunity. However, the momentum for that derives from the fact that it has been driven from the centre.
Over the years, the Northern Ireland civil service has developed high standards of conduct, but they will be eroded if common ideals are no longer prescribed by the Department of Finance and Personnel. Complaints against members of the civil service for breaches of confidence, conflicts of interest and corruption have been minimal. However, that record has been achieved by the reinforcement at the centre of the need for the highest standards. If that force were removed, there is a danger that standards would be relaxed.
The order could potentially severely damage the equity principle on which the civil service is based. That would further damage the morale of civil servants, with potentially harmful effects to the services which they currently deliver. Creating a culture of insecurity and equity in relation to terms and conditions of employment in the Northern Ireland civil service is not likely to make the organisation function more effectively. Fear, greed, resentment and jealousy do not lead to better performance. Rather, they place the self-advancement and survival of the individual above the sense of public service.
In a community such as Northern Ireland, that would be a tragedy. Already there is resentment within the Northern Ireland civil service, and some feel that they have been treated partially compared with colleagues. There are clear signs that that attitude is on the increase, fostered by performance-related pay schemes, where perceived identical levels of performance have been rewarded differently in different Departments.
If the order is implemented, the chief executives of the agencies which are to be hived off will be able to introduce new terms and conditions. That would inevitably add to the sense of resentment which is already growing as new layers of pay differentials are imposed.
We are concerned that article 3 of the order allows functions to be delegated to any servant of the Crown. That may remove the function concerned from immediate

parliamentary scrutiny. The power which the order grants to delegate management functions represents a dramatic erosion of ministerial accountability to Parliament.
The Minister of State said that the Secretary of State would of course be responsible, but we have seen what has happened in Departments and agencies after delegation. A matter goes to an agency manager who writes a letter which then appears in the Official Report. Ministers are gradually shouldering off their specific responsibilities for the day-to-day running of Departments.
If the order is implemented, there will be no clear line of accountability between Northern Ireland agencies and Departments and Parliament. The order would therefore continue the trend of diminishing direct parliamentary accountability.
The term "servant of the Crown" is not defined anywhere in legislation. Therefore, depending on how the Government decide to interpret that, the order could potentially enable Ministers to delegate functions to persons who are not normally regarded as civil servants. They would not be subject to democratic accountability and would have no obligation to Parliament. For example, a private company which was given a service could say that the prime responsibility of the people running that company was to the shareholders, not to Parliament or the Secretary of State.
A person to whom a function is delegated can further delegate the function to another servant of the Crown. In that way, the order allows the exercise of functions to become increasingly remote from the central apparatus of accountability.
The circumstances in which the civil service operates in Northern Ireland are not same as those in Britain. The Government have made no attempt to recognise the differences, and have merely replicated the British legislation for Northern Ireland. In a divided society, it is vital that the civil service is seen to be impartial and committed to the principles of neutrality and equality.
At present, the Northern Ireland civil service is seen as being an employer at the forefront of the movement to ensure fair employment and equality of opportunity. That position will be jeopardised by the implementation of the order and, for those reasons, we shall oppose it.

Mr. William Ross: The order simply mirrors and applies the provisions of the Civil Service (Management Functions) Act 1992 to Northern Ireland, and that has been made perfectly clear by the previous two speakers. It is, of course, a technical order but, like most apparently innocent technical orders, it has consequences downstream which I think deserve rather more careful examination than would normally be given.
I begin by asking the Minister the reasons for the various textual changes which have been made between the proposal for the draft order and its publication. For instance, article 2(2) of the order has simply disappeared, and articles 3 and 4(4) seem to have been completely rewritten. I am curious as to the technical reasons for the changes. Do they make any real changes to the meaning of the order, or is it simply a neater and clearer way of expressing the same meaning as was in the original draft? Do they arise because of the passing of the legislation for Great Britain? We are entitled to a full explanation of why the changes have been made.
We understand that the structure of the civil service in Northern Ireland is not quite the same as it is in Great Britain, in that there are no heads of Department, as the term is understood over here, in Northern Ireland. In Northern Ireland, the "heads of Department" were laid down as the members of the 1973 Northern Ireland executive, and they were to be politicians. There are now no such persons in Northern Ireland, although I notice that the term "head of a Department" is used in the last sentence of the order. Perhaps the Government are keeping on a little bit of insurance or at least paying the insurance premiums just in case we have an Executive in Northern Ireland in the future.
Regardless of that, however, I must express my reservations about the transfer of management functions, as my hon. Friend the Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble) did during the debate on the Civil Service (Management Functions) Act 1992, which applies to the rest of the United Kingdom. That transfer, like all transfers of power to agencies and quangos, will create even greater problems for hon. Members, because they will then express their concerns to the Ministers who are ultimately responsible without any hope of having an effect.
We have seen from similar transfers that Ministers tend to shrug off various obligations, as the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North (Mr. McNamara) said, so that their own ultimate responsibility is diminished. Everything is handled at arm's length. Within the United Kingdom context of government, that is wrong. The buck should stop on the Minister's desk, but he is quietly moving it to someone else's. I do not believe that that is acceptable.
We need a system of government and administration which allows hon. Members to call Ministers to account, but once that is made more difficult, the quality of the services under examination will eventually fall.
Ministers are giving powers away to others, often to their own creatures. They can then say, "Look, my hands are clean, but I will ask the person I have appointed to write to the hon. Member." In other words, Ministers will simply dodge the responsibilities that they took on when they stood before the electorate and said, "Vote for me. I am capable of doing all these wonderful things. I am capable of actually running a Department of Government. I am capable of answering questions. The buck does stop on my desk and I will answer for it." I am sorry to note that the Minister of State is going along with that principle. Perhaps he would like to shuffle off some of his responsibilities elsewhere.
The debate in the other place on the Civil Service (Management Functions) Bill took place on 7 July 1992, just two years ago. That is the normal time it takes before Northern Ireland catches up with the rest of Great Britain, unlike the happy position that we once enjoyed of leading the rest of the state. Lord Howe said that the transfer of functions included all aspects of the determination of pay and other conditions of service in the civil service. He said that the Bill was intended to cover those functions.
The proposed changes are therefore substantial and I fear that the consequences will not be altogether happy. I fear that the downstream consequences will go much further than the Government are prepared to admit.
The Government are, once again, introducing legislation and putting changes into effect that may be used as a rod to beat their own back should they cross to the Opposition Benches. They seem to forget that they will not always be in office. The changes will lead to the delegation

of functions, not of civil servants, and they will alter dramatically how Northern Ireland is governed and administered.
When the Minister replies to the debate, perhaps he can tell us whether he has discussed that change in the governance of Northern Ireland with his counterparts in the Irish Republic. Were there any discussions with Dublin? If not, have the Irish Government expressed any annoyance at being left out of the reckoning in this matter? Or perhaps the Government are finally beginning to reverse the disastrous decisions that they accepted in 1985. Are they really now saying, "Yes, we will govern Northern Ireland as we desire. That is the way it is because that is the way in which the United Kingdom is run." I hope that there was no agreement with Dublin, and I hope that the Government have been their own man in this matter.
I fear that the changes will lead to the break-up of the Northern Ireland civil service. I also believe that they will place the high standards of confidentiality in Northern Ireland in jeopardy. There is no place in the kingdom where such strict confidentiality about individuals is more needed than in Northern Ireland, with all the terrorist dangers that surround many people, especially servants of the Crown. Their names float around various sections of the civil service and the dangers accruing to those individuals, should there be a leak of information, are quite appalling.
Another problem is the possibility of regionalisation of pay, conditions and grading. That matter should concern everyone. A considerable number of United Kingdom civil servants as well as Northern Irish ones work in the Province. Many functions that are carried out there apply throughout the United Kingdom. Various aspects of civil service and Government work have been centralised in various places and we have been fortunate that some centralised services have been moved to the Province. That is welcome because a large part of the economy of Northern Ireland depends on the money paid in salaries and other expenses to those civil servants. If wages were forced down in the interests of greater competition, the entire economy of the Province would suffer. None of us wants to see that. We want national standards to prevail across the board.
Another danger is that the pressure and interference exerted by the Fair Employment Commission will increase with regard to recruitment in Northern Ireland. The most recent report from the Fair Employment Commission on the civil service of Northern Ireland noted that it employed considerably more Roman Catholics than their number within the general population required. It held that that was fair, so we can expect further application of such fairness to the detriment of many other people in Northern Ireland. I expect that the Government will live to rue the day that they fragmented the Northern Ireland civil service and broke up its various sections, because that will allow all the evils that I have detailed to flourish.
Every time responsibility is shuffled off Parliament is denied an opportunity for debate. I much regret that step. It will allow changes to be concealed unless the suggestion of my hon. Friend the Member for Upper Bann is acted on. I hope that the Minister will give a favourable reply, because at least we would then know what fool decisions had been made, even if we are not allowed to discuss them beforehand.
The number of 25,000 civil servants has been bandied about, but I checked and the number listed as employees of


the Northern Ireland civil service is larger than that—it has full-time equivalents of 27,661. That must be set against the total home civil service number of 546,339. In national terms, we are talking about a small number of people. There is no reason why Ministers should not be able to exercise their functions under the present system, which has worked well. I regret that the Government have clearly never heard of the advice, "If it ain't broke, don't fix it," never mind tried to act on it. If there is something wrong, we have not been told. If there is nothing wrong, why fix it?
As far as we are aware, the current system works well. It is widely accepted as fair and reasonable. It is being unnecessarily upset and ruptured simply because some folk seem to be intent on endless change. They want to give the impression of renewal and advance, but, at the end of the day, we will probably wind up in a rather worse state than that in which we started.

Mr. David Trimble: I do not intend to speak at length on this subject, although I am tempted to do so because, due to the mismanagement of the House's proceedings by the business managers and usual channels, we have 58 minutes left to debate it. With all due respect to the Northern Ireland civil service, the previous debate was much more important, but it had to be truncated without the subject being properly discussed.
The Minister will be also be relieved to hear that I do not intend to go into matters of substance, although I am tempted to do so because I served on the Committee that dealt with the Civil Service (Management Functions) Bill when it went through the House a couple of years ago. The substance of the matter is tangled and involved, so I shall simply ask the Minister a few questions on procedural aspects.
The order began as a purely mechanical operation to extend the 1992 Act to Northern Ireland. It was to be a negative resolution order, which would not have been debated in the House. Two years have elapsed since then. I have complained before about the Northern Ireland Office's inefficiency in handling Order in Council procedures and the fact that it cannot even run its squalid direct rule system effectively. Although the reason for delay in this case may be other than the usual inefficiency of the Northern Ireland Office, will the Minister spell out the factors that have caused a two-year delay?
That question touches on points raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Londonderry, East (Mr. Ross), who drew attention to differences between the proposal for the draft order and the draft order now before the House. I presume that the proposal for a draft order was based on the 1992 Act. The order before us has evidently been changed. Given that it started as a parity measure extending to Northern Ireland legislation that operates in England and Wales and that it was to go through by negative resolution without debate, will the Minister say not only what those changes are and why they have been made, but whether the changes now reverse parity in England and Wales? Having adjusted the order to meet circumstances in Northern Ireland, should not we re-examine the 1992 Act?

Mr. Ancram: The whole House will have welcomed this constructive and interesting, if short, debate. As much as I enjoy listening to speeches by the hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble), I am glad that he did not succumb to the temptation to interest the House for a lengthy period. I speak for the whole House in saying that I listened to his brief, succinct remarks with interest.
A number of points have been raised. At the beginning of the debate, the hon. Member for Upper Bann asked me about the undertaking to report to Parliament, which has been given in relation to the legislation that was passed some time ago. I told him that I understood that that position would be reflected as regards Northern Ireland, and that is correct. A report will be provided to Parliament periodically on the delegations made by the Department of Finance and Personnel, but the precise content of the report is yet to be decided. It is likely to follow the format of the written answer on delegations in the home civil service printed in the Official Report in January this year, which provided details of the nature of the delegations granted, the recipients and the main conditions attached to the delegations. I hope that the hon. Gentleman feels reassured that that safeguard will be built in. I do not wish to confirm the report's precise content. Once it is known, I shall arrange for a letter to be sent to the hon. Gentleman explaining that, if he so wishes.
The hon. Members for Kingston upon Hull, North (Mr. McNamara) and for Londonderry, East (Mr. Ross) raised the important matter of accountability, particularly parliamentary accountability, for management of the Northern Ireland civil service under the order. Like that of the home civil service, management of the Northern Ireland civil service is within the royal prerogative, but nothing in the order affects Parliament's right to raise questions about how it is managed. The order does not affect the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland's direct accountability to Parliament for the general management and control of the Northern Ireland civil service. That accountability remains the same. In addition, as I have just said, there will be an annual report. Together, those will provide a sufficient safeguard.
Both hon. Members asked about the order's effect on equal opportunities and fair employment. Departments and agencies operate within the Northern Ireland civil service policy statement on equality of opportunity, which is underpinned by equal opportunity and fair employment legislation. Obviously, Departments and agencies to which delegations are granted must comply with the law. They will be expected to operate in a manner, and retain in place policies and procedures, reflecting the well established priority of fair participation in employment in Northern Ireland.
The hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North also asked about the term "servant of the Crown". The term is limited to those in Crown service and cannot apply to anyone outside the public service. In that respect, accountability to Parliament for all delegations will remain with the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland.
The hon. Member for Londonderry, East asked about changes between the proposed draft and the draft order currently before the House. The amendments to the original order were not substantive and did not alter the legislation's intent. Two of the changes clarified the terms of the proposal published in August 1993 and the


amendment to article 3(1) reflected the constitutional position in respect of the management of the Northern Ireland civil service, and brought the wording of the order closer to the terminology in the Letters Patent and Northern Ireland Constitution Act 1973. Paragraph 4(4) of the proposal for a draft order was found unnecessary because there were no statutory bodies where the approval of two Departments was required to exercise a power relating to the management of staff. That is why the changes were made.
The hon. Member for Londonderry, East also asked whether officials in the Republic of Ireland had been consulted. The proposal for a draft order was sent to a number of organisations. Several of them have a general interest in the proposed legislation and some were party leaders, who were invited to comment. In addition, notification of the proposal's publication was placed in the Belfast Gazette. Two comments were received from trade union representatives on the central Whitley council. There was no such consultation with the Republic of Ireland.
Finally, the hon. Member for Upper Bann asked why the order had taken so long. He will recall that, when the original legislation was going through, he spoke out against the negative resolution procedure because the affirmative procedure would allow greater consultation and for comments to be made and taken into account. His comments were listened to on this occasion and the procedure which we are pursuing today is in accordance with what he requested. The effect is that a certain amount of time is taken up in the consultation process.
This useful debate has covered a number of points. Ultimately, some will always believe that there is a hidden agenda, but in this case there is none. The draft order will simply enable delegation by the DFP of its management and control responsibilities. It must be prudent in taking such powers to allow appropriate management action to be taken.
The hon. Member for Londonderry, East asked why we should fix something if it was not broken. I have heard that adage before. If we took that as our guiding principle in life, many improvements that have been made would not have come about because the measures which they replaced were not broken. I commend the order to the House.

Question put:—

The House divided: Ayes 126, Noes 37.

Division No. 278]
[6.18 pm


AYES


Ancram, Michael
Carlisle, Sir Kenneth (Lincoln)


Arbuthnot, James
Carrington, Matthew


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Carttiss, Michael


Aspinwall, Jack
Cash, William


Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)
Chapman, Sydney


Baker, Nicholas (Dorset North)
Clappison, James


Bates, Michael
Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Ruclif)


Blackburn, Dr John G.
Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey



Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Coe, Sebastian


Booth, Hartley
Conway, Derek


Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)
Cope, Rt Hon Sir John


Brandreth, Gyles
Cran, James


Brazier, Julian
Davies, Quentin (Stamford)


Browning, Mrs. Angela
Devlin, Tim


Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)
Dicks, Terry



Burns, Simon
Duncan, Alan


Burt, Alistair
Duncan-Smith, Iain





Elletson, Harold
Neubert, Sir Michael


Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Newton, Rt Hon Tony


Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)
Page, Richard


Fabricant, Michael
Paice, James


Fishburn, Dudley
Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey


Forth, Eric
Pawsey, James


Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)
Porter, David (Waveney)


Freeman, Rt Hon Roger
Powell, William (Corby)


French, Douglas
Richards, Rod


Gale, Roger
Riddick, Graham


Gill, Christopher
Robinson, Mark (Somerton)


Gillan, Cheryl
Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)


Gorman, Mrs Teresa
Ryder, Rt Hon Richard


Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)
Sackville, Tom


Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)
Shaw, David (Dover)


Hague, William
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)


Hampson, Dr Keith
Soames, Nicholas


Harris, David
Spencer, Sir Derek



Hawksley, Warren
Spink, Dr Robert


Hayes, Jerry
Sproat, Iain


Heald, Oliver
Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John


Hendry, Charles
Steen, Anthony



Hill, James (Southampton Test)
Stephen, Michael


Hunter, Andrew
Stern, Michael


Jackson, Robert (Wantage)
Sweeney, Walter


Jenkin, Bernard
Sykes, John


Jessel, Toby
Taylor, Ian (Esher)


Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey
Taylor, John M. (Solihull)


Jones, Robert B. (W Hertfdshr)
Taylor, Sir Teddy (Southend, E)


King, Rt Hon Tom
Thomason, Roy


Kirkhope, Timothy
Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)


Knapman, Roger
Thurnham, Peter


Knight, Greg (Derby N)
Trend, Michael


Lawrence, Sir Ivan
Trotter, Neville


Legg, Barry
Twinn, Dr Ian


Lidington, David
Viggers, Peter


Lightbown, David
Walden, George


MacKay, Andrew
Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)


Maitland, Lady Olga
Wells, Bowen


Malone Gerald
Whittingdale, John


Mans, Keith
Widdecombe, Ann


Martin, David (Portsmouth S)
Willetts, David


Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick
Winterton, Nicholas (Macc'f'ld)


Merchant, Piers
Wood, Timothy


Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)



Montgomery, Sir Fergus
Tellers for the Ayes:


Moss, Malcolm
Mr. Robert Hughes and


Nelson, Anthony
Mr. Irvine Patnick.


NOES


Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)
Mallon, Seamus


Anderson, Ms Janet (Ros'dale)
Miller, Andrew


Barnes, Harry
Molyneaux, Rt Hon James


Beckett, Rt Hon Margaret
Morley, Elliot




Benn, Rt Hon Tony
O'Hara, Edward


Carlile, Alexander (Montgomry)
Pike, Peter L.


Cohen, Harry
Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lew'm E)


Cook, Frank (Stockton N)
Ross, William (E Londonderry)


Foster, Rt Hon Derek
Skinner, Dennis


Gerrard, Neil
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)


Gordon, Mildred
Taylor, Rt Hon John D. (Strgfd)


Harvey, Nick
Timms, Stephen


Jones, Lynne (B'ham S O)
Trimble, David


Kennedy, Charles (Ross, C&S)
Tyler, Paul


Kilfedder, Sir James
Wareing, Robert N


Kilfoyle, Peter
Wicks, Malcolm


Kirkwood, Archy



Lewis, Terry
Tellers for the Noes:


McNamara, Kevin
Mr. Ray Powell and


Maddock, Mrs Diana
Mr. John Spellar.


Mahon, Alice

Question accordingly agreed to.

Resolved,
That the draft Civil Service (Management Functions) (Northern Ireland) Order 1994, which was laid before this House on 3rd May, be approved.

Orders of the Day — Animal Welfare

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Nicholas Soames): I beg to move,
That the draft Welfare of Livestock Regulations 1994, which were laid before this House on 14th June, be approved.
How appropriate that you, Madam Deputy Speaker, should be in the Chair for this debate on animal welfare. The main purpose of the measure is to implement European directives and our commitments to the Council of Europe in respect of animal welfare. It is being introduced after full consultation with the industry, welfare organisations and other interested parties.
Although the size of the document may appear daunting, that is principally because, as well as making the necessary changes to the legislation, we have taken the opportunity to consolidate five existing statutory instruments. The House will note that there are four schedules to the regulations, relating to battery hens, calves, pigs and other livestock. Previously, anyone trying to establish the welfare requirements relating to pigs would have had to consult three separate statutory instruments, as opposed to the single schedule in the draft regulations.
I will now explain the main changes that we are proposing. First, I should draw the House's attention to the inclusion of a provision in the main body of the regulations which implements an important recommendation made by the admirable Farm Animal Welfare Council, to whose work I am sure the House will want to pay a warm tribute. The council was concerned that wording used in some welfare legislation could militate against a successful prosecution, particularly where a defendant denied knowledge of an animal's condition.
The draft regulation makes it clear that references to a person
knowingly permitting livestock to be kept
also encompass those circumstances where a person might reasonably be expected to know how that livestock is kept.
Schedule 1 on battery hens updates the previous Welfare of Battery Hens Regulations 1987, which implement the Community directive of 1986 setting minimum standards for battery hens.
I must now explain a complex problem which arose when the 1987 regulations were made. I hope that the House will enjoy the exceptional clarity of my explanation. The EC directive requires 450 sq cm of floor space for each hen—that is the minimum cage area. Normally, hens are kept four or five to a cage, giving as a minimum an overall cage size of 1,800 to 2,250 sq cm. This gives the birds some flexibility as to the use of space.

Mr. Harry Cohen: rose—

Mr. Soames: I am always happy to give way to the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Cohen: I thank the Minister for giving way. Will he confirm that the floor space for hens that he has mentioned is about the size of a sheet of A4 paper?

Mr. Soames: That is perfectly correct. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will allow me to finish my point—whereupon he will, I hope, be clearer about the matter.
Some cages exist in which three, two or one birds are housed. Clearly, 450 sq cm per bird is quite inappropriate

when such small numbers are considered, because the birds cannot share space as they can in the larger cages. Our domestic legislation therefore requires 550 sq cm per bird for three-bird cages, 750 sq cm per bird for two-bird cages and 1,000 sq cm for single-bird cages.
Now for the complication. The height of the cage is regulated by reference to the minimum cage area. Although certain three, two or one-bird cages—mainly those known as A-frame cages—meet the requirements in all other respects, their height in relation to the overall floor area will be just short of the minimum required when the minimum area is the higher area specified in United Kingdom law. I know that my hon. Friends are following this closely.
We accepted arguments put forward by the industry to the effect that it would be unreasonable to make such cages illegal from 1995. The change in the regulations before the House will thus ensure that the cage height requirement refers to the minimum cage area set in the directive—450 sq cm per bird—and not that in our domestic legislation, thus permitting continued use of these cages.

Mr. Harry Greenway: We do, indeed, appreciate the exceptional clarity of my hon. Friend's explanation. Does he agree that there is a small trend away from using battery cages, and that that is to be encouraged? I for one welcome it.

Mr. Soames: Any trends in modern farming in favour of more natural systems are to be welcomed. But there will always be a place for battery cages; they represent a big business. The House should be very careful before pontificating about other systems which are often even less satisfactory than battery cages—but I certainly take my hon. Friend's point.
The measure that we are introducing will, we estimate, save the industry £9 million at current prices without adversely affecting the welfare of the birds concerned.
I will take the schedules relating to calves and pigs together, as the changes proposed to existing requirements are similar. In November 1991, the Council of Ministers adopted Community directives laying down minimum standards for the welfare of calves and pigs. We are, of course, required to implement those directives and are somewhat overdue in doing so.
In addition to setting new space requirements for calves and weaner pigs, the regulations implement, from 1 July 15, a ban on the pig-rearing systems commonly known as sweat boxes. They also introduce certain new provisions which, although numerous, can be summarised as relating to the maintenance of good husbandry.
There are two important respects in which the requirements in these regulations go further than those in the directives. I refer, of course, to the ban on the use of veal crates and the phasing out of close confinement stalls and tethers for pigs.

Mr. Christopher Gill: Before my hon. Friend proceeds any further, can he tell the House when the other European Union countries will ban stalls and tethers?

Mr. Soames: If my hon. Friend will allow me to proceed in an orderly fashion, I shall come to that.
The phase-out of stalls and tethers was first proposed by my hon. Friend the Member for Holland with Boston (Sir R. Body), who has a most distinguished record in this field. It was introduced by the Welfare of Pigs Regulations 1991,


which allowed an eight-year phase-in period to the end of 1998—unlike the directive, which requires the phasing out of systems using tethers by the end of 2005 and allows the use of close confinement stalls to continue.
The United Kingdom requirements were in place before the directives were adopted and both were introduced for the soundest reasons of animal welfare. We do not consider, therefore, that, in implementing these directives, we should take a step backwards from our own hard-won and high standards of animal welfare. We voted against the two directives precisely because we were convinced that they did not go far enough, and we shall continue to press for their amendment.
The schedule concerning the welfare of other livestock brings together the requirements contained in the Welfare of Livestock (Intensive Units) Regulations 1978 and the Welfare of Livestock Regulations 1990. The intensive units regulations were introduced in 1978 as a result of our commitment to implement the Council of Europe convention on the protection of animals kept for farming purposes. That convention has now been amended, requiring contracting parties to amend the definition of intensive farming in their law. The old definition assumed that intensive livestock farming meant the farming of animals in environmentally controlled buildings and required that they be attended on a daily basis to ensure their welfare.
The convention now acknowledges that, particularly in the southern states of Europe, farming systems which are not in buildings may be equally intensive, and that the animals concerned may equally require daily attention if they are not to suffer. Although the change will be of little consequence to farmers in Britain—unless the present warm weather continues—it is necessary to enable us to ratify the amendment to the convention.
By way of clarification, I should explain that the requirements in the schedule are not applied to battery hens, calves and pigs, because, as I explained at the beginning of my speech, those have been catered for in the schedules relating to them.
The regulations maintain our reputation for standards of animal welfare which are among the highest in Europe. Some hon. Members will no doubt be disappointed that we have not taken the opportunity to go further than the directive and impose new requirements for battery cages. I make no apology for that. The decision was an entirely deliberate one on our part.
The way forward, as my colleagues and I have stated on many occasions, is to seek to persuade our European partners of the importance of achieving satisfactory controls on a Community-wide basis.

Mr. Peter L. Pike: Will the Minister give way?

Mr. Soames: I shall press on, if I may.
It may be necessary from time to time for the United Kingdom, in the most honourable manner, to take a lead in that regard. We await the Commission's proposals for amendments to the battery hens directive and will be pressing hard for improved standards.
It will be clear from my remarks that we believe that the Community still has some way to go in establishing satisfactory farm animal welfare standards and that we are

ahead of the game in some respects. The ban on veal crates and the impending ban on stalls and tethers provide two examples.
I recognise, as will anyone who has anything to do with farming, that the measures impose extra costs on our farmers which the producers of imported meat do not have to bear. It is only right that those extra burdens should also provide, as I am sure they will, a marketing advantage.
I hope that the welfare organisations will use some of their well-developed publicity skills to emphasise to consumers that they can give real help to the welfare cause by insisting on food produced to the highest welfare standards when they shop or order in restaurants.

Mr. Pike: I should like to press the Minister on one point. I know that he is sympathetic on these issues. Can he assure us that these standards will be observed in the importation of livestock from outside the European Union? The hon. Gentleman says that, in some cases, the standards are still not up to those that we in Britain would want. But we know for a fact that, outside the European Union, standards are even worse than those in other parts of the European Union.

Mr. Soames: It is not possible for me to give that assurance. However, the hon. Gentleman is right to make the point. The standards for livestock in third countries—not third-world countries—are certainly not those that we would wish to see applied. Britain has an enormous amount to do to lead opinion in Europe on this matter. Our record is not blameless—of course it is not—but we have higher standards than anywhere else in Europe. Welfare organisations must work for change in the wider Europe, not simply concentrate their fire power and money-raising activities here. They should use their hard-won skills to influence the Governments of countries whose standards and cultural and attitudinal realities are not those of this country.
I conclude by reassuring hon. Members that we truly appreciate the concerns that have been expressed on behalf of those who are at the sharp end of the legislation—the hard-pressed British farmers. Statutory controls are truly an essential part of our programme for the protection of animal welfare. The requirements set out in many pages of the document, a number of which are new to our legislation, may appear onerous. But those who already respect and care for their animals—and that includes the greatest possible proportion of those in Britain concerned with livestock: the vast majority—have nothing to fear from them. I warmly commend them to the House.

Mr. Elliot Morley: It was Ghandi who said that the greatness of a nation and its moral progress can be judged by the way in which it treats its animals. This is one of the few areas in which the European Union has something to learn from Britain about our standards of husbandry and the regulations that we have introduced. I welcome the regulations which consolidate a number of measures and bring about a few improvements in terms of stock densities and the keeping of animals.
That is not to say, however, that Britain should not constantly be looking at ways of improving the welfare of animals and the way in which we treat them, or that we should not constantly be pressing within the European Union for the sort of improvements that we know the


public, the Labour party and the Government wish to see. Many farmers are constantly striving for such improvements, and their work should be recognised.
Let me deal first with battery cages. The Minister explained with some clarity the complicated change in cage height to no less than 40 cm, which is compulsory for only 60 per cent. of the first 450 cu m. All cage heights after that can be as low as the producer wishes. That may be an improvement but, as my hon. Friend the Member for Leyton (Mr. Cohen) said, we are still talking about an area no bigger than a sheet of A4 paper.
Battery hens do not constitute a satisfactory method of egg production. All the research on battery cages confirms that. As early as 1985, a study by M. S. Dawkins entitled "Cage Height Preference and Use in Battery-Kept Hens" shows that 25 per cent. of hens' head movements take place at a height above 40 cm. By reducing that height, one is affecting the hens' behaviour. As the Minister will be aware, the Farm Animal Welfare Council, which does an excellent job and provides impartial and professional advice to the Government, has laid down five freedoms, one of which is the freedom to exhibit natural behaviour. Battery cages do not meet that criterion.
A recent study by Dr. Baxter, published in The Veterinary Record, concluded:
The scientific evidence reviewed in this paper suggests that battery cages cause suffering in laying hens in at least seven different ways.
I shall not quote further. Suffice it to say that that is a carefully researched paper which will be endorsed by many people of an independent scientific mind.
I recognise the point made by the Minister and the Select Committee on Agriculture in its recent report that battery cages cannot be banned overnight. That must be done over a phased period, and the case for it argued through the European Union.
The Labour party recognises that it is of no advantage to animal welfare for Britain to ban battery cages if, because of the Single European Act, we cannot stop eggs that have been produced in the very same battery cages that we have banned flooding on to our market. We should like to see the phasing out of battery cages, but we recognise that that would have to be done in conjunction with the industry and the Council of Ministers so that similar measures can be introduced within the European Community.
There are many alternative methods of egg production some—of them extremely efficient and semi-automated—that give hens a chance to behave in more natural ways. As we move towards the ban, I hope that the Minister will consider various cage-enrichment measures, work on which has been undertaken in respect of many different animals in recent years. For hens, such measures can include perches, scratching pads and dust baths. We want more research and development in that regard.
I appreciate that one cannot ban battery systems overnight, and that improvements must be argued throughout Europe, but Sweden is phasing out battery cages and Switzerland has already banned them. Sweden may become a member of the European Union, so I hope that the Government will seek its support in persuading other member states to move in the right direction.
As to schedule 2, it is a matter of pride for Britain that veal crates have rightly been banned, but this country has

a huge export trade in veal calves, which will be put in the same crates that are banned here. It is imperative that Britain argues in the Council of Ministers for similar standards to apply. We could do more than we do positively to reinforce our own producers in banning veal crates in the economics of veal production.
In this country, veal is produced much more humanely than on the continent, yet British veal is not marketed there as being humanely produced. No resources appear to be devoted to that through the Meat and Livestock Commission or Food from Britain, to give British producers some support and advantage to reward the high standards that they encourage.
We welcome paragraphs 6, 10, 11, 12 and 13 of schedule 2, which make it clear that there is no possibility of reintroducing restrictive crating of the kind banned in this country. My only concern is that schedule 2 still permits tethering—although it rightly specifies that the calf must be able to stand, turn around, lie down, rest and groom itself without hindrance. There appears to be some contradiction, so I would welcome the Minister's comments.

Sir Teddy Taylor: Does the hon. Gentleman have any estimate of the number of veal calves exported to the continent?

Mr. Morley: A figure of 450,000 has been suggested —an enormous trade, with all the welfare implications that go with it. I should like it stopped—I make no bones about that.
Schedule 3 relates to sow stalls and tethers, and I place on record my admiration for the hon. Member for Holland with Boston (Sir R. Body), who introduced the measure with all-party support. I am grateful, too, for the Government's support in announcing that sow stalls and tethers will be phased out by 1 January 1999.
Hon. Members may have received a brief from the British Pig Association, and I recognise its concern that the British pig industry will be disadvantaged because the European Union has announced that tethers will be banned. That will not occur until the year 2006. The Minister will be aware that the pig industry goes through particular cycles, and it is currently experiencing a difficult time.
There is evidence that some of Britain's main competitors are expanding pig production. Figures from the BPA suggest an increase in slaughtering of 54 per cent. in Denmark. In Spain, slaughtering has increased 24 per cent. and in France, 28 per cent. In the Netherlands, slaughtering has increased 97.3 per cent., while in the United Kingdom it has declined 5.1 per cent.
I was surprised to learn from a written answer that export refunds and private storage aid, which is available to all member states, totalled 2.6 million ecu for British producers in the provisional figures for 1993. Compare that with France, at 6.1 million ecu, and Germany, which received an incredible 33 million ecu. That shows that continental competitors are receiving a great deal of European funding. I hope that the Minister will explore ways of giving some support to the British pig industry in the move to alternative pig-rearing methods.
In my own constituency, which is a centre of the British pig industry, there has been a dramatic move towards field systems. A paper by Mike Varley at the department of animal physiology and nutrition of Leeds university estimated a 40 per cent. move towards field systems. The


same paper demonstrates some of the problems. The number of farms with pigs has declined dramatically, having almost halved in the past two years from 22,000—farms to 12,000—but the average herd size increased. That for sows has risen from 37 to 62.
Concentrated animal rearing brings problems that the regulations address, including tail docking and tooth clipping. I appreciate that the industry wants the right to dock tails and clip teeth for welfare reasons. If those practices are supported by veterinary opinion, there is no reason why they should not be allowed—but they must not be viewed as the norm. Such practices should be adopted on an individual basis, depending on welfare reasons.
One cause of tail chewing is intensive rearing systems. If stocking is reduced, so is tail chewing. Some field systems have reduced welfare problems—although I accept that different systems bring their own problems and challenges.
I hope that the Minister will reconsider the age limit on piglets for teeth clipping. Organisations such as Compassion in World Farming and the Royal Society for the Protection of Animals hold that clipping should be done within three days.
We welcome and endorse the prohibition on pig sweat boxes after 1 July 1995, and I am sure that the industry knows that that must come. There is also a regulation on pig weaning, which we also welcome. However, that largely endorses existing intensive practice, and there may be a case for reviewing the weaning age on the basis that the current limit in the regulations is on the low side.
I welcome the Minister's assurance that there will be no going back on the time scale for banning tethering and stalls, although I have some sympathy with the British pig industry's position. The industry is largely unsubsidised, competes commercially, receives little support and has great regard for animal welfare. That is certainly the impression that I receive when visiting pig farmers in my constituency. The BPA's brief takes a somewhat defeatist attitude to welfare marketing. The BPA considered that a premium price could not be obtained for pork produced from pigs bred in fields where high welfare standards applied, but I am not sure that I agree. I do not underestimate the difficulty of marketing food produced in such conditions, however: we need measures to make the system work effectively.
The association raised some points that I think the Minister should consider sympathetically. For instance, it called for research into alternative ways of rearing pigs more humanely. I know that a great deal of work has been done on the idea of farrowing crates designed to minimise the stress suffered by farrowing sows. The pig industry would like more support for training to establish a high standard of stock keeping—perhaps we should reconsider the qualifications involved—and the development of skills. I think that Government have a role in that regard, through the Agricultural Development Advisory Service and other organisations.
Then there is the question of capital investment. Those investing in agricultural machinery can claim tax relief on some 25 per cent. of the investment, but I understand that investors in new buildings in which to rear animals can claim only 3 per cent. Could our laws, or European Community laws, allow 25 per cent. relief on animal rearing systems intended to meet new welfare standards? The Minister may wish to discuss that with his Treasury colleagues. Such action might encourage those in the

industry who have made the reasonable point that it is unfair for them to be improving welfare standards in isolation, while their competitors do nothing. Although that should not be used as an excuse for failing to aim for the highest possible welfare standards, consideration should be given to the pressure that is put on producers.
As I have said, Labour welcomes the regulations in general. However, we want improvements in training and clarification of enforcement issues, and some related issues need to be resolved in the European Union. The treaty of Rome, for instance, defines animals as agricultural products, which we see as one of the problems of the attitude of some southern European states in particular to animal welfare standards. We want the definition to be changed to "sentient animals", which would imply a recognition that animals feel, suffer and need to be kept properly.
This country does not compare favourably with others when it comes to marketing and adding value, especially when high welfare standards are involved. The aspiration of many farmers is simply to export live animals to the continent, where they are slaughtered and value is added at the slaughterhouses. That is not good enough. Given all the welfare problems of animal transport, the loss of jobs in our slaughter industry and the implications for our balance of trade, it makes no sense: we need more support for marketing and this country's high production standards. The Government could perform such a role through organisations such as Food From Britain and the Meat and Livestock Commission.
That will work, however, only if food is labelled properly to facilitate consumer choice. The Minister made a fair point when he spoke of the lobbying and campaigning power of animal welfare organisations. That power should also be directed at supermarkets and other retailers, which should be encouraged to sell British goods whose production has involved high standards and to label them in a way that enables consumers to opt for them. Clear labelling would greatly benefit British producers, because consumers would then be on their side, using their buying power to reward good producers and penalise those in other countries whose standards are lower. So far, we are making little progress in that regard.
I know that animal transport is not covered in the regulations, and I do not intend to go into detail; but it is important that we aim for high standards and try to minimise—or, preferably, eliminate—live transport for slaughter, especially where calves are concerned. There is no sense in it. Last week, at the Council of Ministers, the Government performed a dramatic U-turn, shifting from the so-called Greek compromise and backing the more progressive European member states. I hope that that attitude will continue, and that the Government will work alongside the countries—Germany, Holland and Denmark —which argue for higher welfare standards.
Above all, I hope that the Government will appreciate that all the improvements that we have discussed—which I suspect hon. Members on both sides of the House support —must be implemented, through Europe in many cases. That will require the support and co-operation of other member states. What this country must not do is continually isolate itself, thus forfeiting the help that we need to make such advances.

Mr. Roger Gale: I shall try not to be repetitious, although inevitably I shall repeat a little of what was said by the the hon. Member for Glanford and Scunthorpe (Mr. Morley). I was slightly saddened by some of his closing remarks; until then, I intended to say that most of what he had said—as a prominent member of the all-party animal welfare group—was extremely generous and well informed. I associate myself with nearly all of it; I approved especially of what he said about the need for the best possible veterinary advice on matters such as the docking of pigs' tails.
My hon. Friend the Minister mentioned advertising. I should record my thanks to my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food for the stand that she took in Luxembourg over the transport of live animals. It is a great pity that before her negotiations she was subjected to personal attacks in the press; I find that especially disturbing because, when my hon. Friend the Minister was generous enough to find time to see me with representatives of some animal welfare organsations, he made it abundantly clear that our right hon. Friend would negotiate. It is on that small issue that I quarrel with the hon. Gentleman.
There was no U-turn. My right hon. Friend went to Luxembourg to secure the best deal that she could in the circumstances. As it turned out, she was able to secure every modest improvement that was on the table; they were indeed modest—we acknowledge that. Moreover, she managed to secure the United Kingdom's unique privilege of maintaining minimum values in regard to the export of live horses, which is invaluable. Most important of all, she managed to keep the door open for negotiations to continue under the German presidency.
It is a great shame that the animal welfare organisations which have told me that they wrote privately to thank my right hon. Friend for the stand that she took did not have the courage to make those thanks public. I am afraid that, with some cynicism, I have to conclude that there are perhaps more fund-raising possibilities and more bequests are available from shock-horror advertising than from saying thank you.
I am chairman of the all-party animal welfare group which has been determined to campaign responsibly in the way that you taught us, Madam Deputy Speaker, when you chaired the group. We shall go on doing that and it is important that we do so. It is important that, when progress is made, it is recognised by us. As my hon. Friend the Minister will know only too well, however, that will not stop us fighting fiercely for future progress. However, we are grateful for the stand that my right hon. Friend the Minister took.
Like my hon. Friend the Minister and the hon. Member for Glanford and Scunthorpe, I pay tribute to the Farm Animal Welfare Council for the enormous contribution that it has made and continues to make to farm animal welfare. I will remind the House of the council's freedoms. They include freedom from hunger, freedom from thirst, freedom from discomfort, freedom from pain, freedom from injury and disease, freedom from fear, freedom from distress and—this is most important—freedom to express normal behaviour. While wishing to be generous, I must say that by those standards the regulations fail, in many cases lamentably.
Any improvement in the welfare of battery hens is

welcome, but the changes are minimal. It is now widely accepted that the battery cage is no longer acceptable as a means of production. The hon. Member for Glanford and Scunthorpe referred to Dr. Mike Baxter's article in The Veterinary Record. Dr. Baxter is a foremost authority on the subject. In an extremely erudite paper, he has set out clearly the differences between the life style of hens in battery cages and those in percheries.
The House must draw a clear distinction between what are known as free range chickens—subject to all the disease, discomfort and predators that are found, literally, free range and in the open—and chickens in a perchery. Those of us who have taken a keen interest in the issue generally accept that, although percheries may not be ideal, they are the best way forward.
The battery cage does not allow for normal behaviour. It does not allow for wing flapping, perching, nesting, preening and dust bathing. Battery cages lead to brittle bones and leg injuries. The spaces referred to in paragraph 1 of schedule 1 are inadequate for birds to perform their natural behaviour. Assuming that we have to maintain battery cages, for groups of four or more hens, a space allowance of at least 650 sq cm is essential. That would allow colony housing systems to be at least commercially competitive.
Paragraph 9 states:
The flock or group of laying hens shall be inspected thoroughly at least once a day.
That is restated in the welfare codes of the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. That is impossible in a battery system which may contain as many as 40,000 birds. I am told that to remove each bird in a system of that size would take three days. As a welfare requirement it is totally impractical.
I share the concern expressed by my hon. Friend the Minister and the hon. Member for Glanford and Scunthorpe about marketing and, particularly, labelling. I believe that many housewives, househusbands and shoppers who purchase eggs labelled "new laid" or "farm fresh" in pretty boxes with pictures of wide open fields with sunshine and grass genuinely believe that the product is from free range hens, whatever that might mean to the purchaser. In fact, that is not so at all: "fresh" means battery farm fresh—we must get that message across.
More can be done. I know that there has been some criticism of the standards that will be set, but I am pleased to learn that later this year the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals is to launch its freedom food campaign. Under the RSPCA freedom food label, which will be marketed in at least two chains of supermarkets, it is designed to make it clear that the product will be of a high welfare standard—not so high as I or the hon. Member for Glanford and Scunthorpe would like, but infinitely better and more clearly marked than anything currently available to the housewife.
I hope that, when that campaign is launched the purchaser will use the power of the marketplace to begin to dictate high welfare standards. If the purchaser determines to buy only humanely produced products, the producers will quickly realise that it is in their interests to go down that road. That will happen not just in the United Kingdom, but—this is what we seriously wish to achieve—throughout the European Union.

Sir Donald Thompson: I have listened carefully to what my hon. Friend said. Does he agree that


such campaigns would not be possible if the level of welfare for pigs, calves and hens was not already higher than in most of Europe? The campaigners therefore have a solid base from which to start.

Mr. Gale: I agree entirely that, by and large, the United Kingdom has higher farm animal welfare standards than anywhere else in Europe. That is something of which we can be justly proud, but it is not something about which we can be complacent.
I have indicated at some length my concern about battery hens. When eggs become available under the freedom food label they will certainly not come from battery cages. There is a great deal of progress still to be made, but my hon. Friend the Member for Calder Valley (Sir D. Thompson) is right that the marketing campaign would not be possible were there not at least some supplies of well-produced food.
I am proud of the fact that we have banned the use of the veal crate in the United Kingdom. I know that there are those who feel that in doing so we have placed United Kingdom producers at a disadvantage to those throughout the European Union who still use veal crates. I do not believe that that is a reason for the United Kingdom not to take a lead. We should take pride in that. However, it would be foolish not to recognise that in one sense it has been a pyrrhic victory, as some 450,000 veal calves are exported each year to be put into veal crates and subject to even worse conditions on the continent than they would have been in the same veal crates in the United Kingdom. In fact, if veal calves are to be in crates at all, I would have preferred them to be in veal crates here where we can inspect and monitor them rather than on the continent.
On marketing, I was pleased and reassured to learn when I questioned the House of Commons Catering Department that the veal sold in this establishment is all United Kingdom produced. I wonder how many of my hon. Friends and hon. Members and how many people who may read or listen to this debate can put hand on heart and say that every time they go into an Italian restaurant or a butcher's shop they ask where the veal was produced. We know that frequently that veal will have been produced under conditions elsewhere in the European Union that we have said are unacceptable. We have the power to change that through the money in our pockets and the manner in which we spend it.
On advertising, I hope that we shall learn from some of the mistakes that have been made in recent weeks and that the animal welfare organisations which spend considerable sums on advertising will target some of that money and advertising on campaigns of education in the hope and expectation that the consumer will exercise the power of the bank balance and buy only humanely produced food.
The hon. Member for Glanford and Scunthorpe (Mr. Morley) went into great detail about pigs, boars, sows and gilts, which form the bulk of the third schedule. I shall not repeat his argument, but I associate myself with all his remarks. It is particularly relevant that we should pay great attention to the best possible veterinary advice. There are genuine difficulties—it is not easy to strike a balance of welfare between sows and piglets while maintaining humane conditions. Matters of genuine debate and concern must be resolved. I still feel that perhaps the directive's provisions for space and bedding are less than adequate, but I am certain that we shall be able to make progress together on that.
I accept entirely that my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary and my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food take these matters extremely seriously. As my hon. Friend the Member for Calder Valley said, the United Kingdom has the highest standards of any European Union country. We look to Ministers not only to promote our best standards throughout the European Union but to raise them, particularly in egg production.
I hope that we can make real progress on labelling so that those who want to buy humanely produced food can do so. If the housewife dictates the market, we shall raise farm animal welfare standards not only in the United Kingdom but much more quickly throughout the European Union.

Mr. Paul Tyler: I am delighted to follow the hon. Member for Thanet, North (Mr. Gale) not only because I agree with much of his speech but because I have the greatest respect for the work that he has done with the all-party group following your previous leadership, Madam Deputy Speaker.
I am pleased that the Parliamentary Secretary initiated the debate, for two reasons: first, because he now sees the industry as being peopled by "hard-pressed British farmers". Opposition Members and, no doubt, some Conservative Back Benchers, will repeat that phrase when we debate hill livestock compensatory allowances later in the year.
Secondly, his robust and realistic attitude on animal welfare is welcome to many hon. Members and, I am afraid that I must say, it is in contrast to the attitude of his Minister. On 24 February, I suggested to the Minister that she should
address her mind particularly to the differences between the animal welfare standards that we seek to achieve in this country, which are on a different time scale to those that are being sought in other member states.
That comment was made with particular regard to the pig sector. She replied:
On animal welfare, the hon. Gentleman is right that our producers do not have a level playing field. I make no apology for that. I am glad that this country has a strong and well-developed animal welfare lobby. We must live with that concern, which is so strongly felt by British people.
A few minutes later, in answer to a different question the Under-Secretary said:
We remain anxious to ensure that an equal regime is in place throughout the continent."—[Official Report, 24 February 1994; Vol. 238, c. 420–23.]
The core of tonight's debate is how to achieve that consistency. I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary will persuade his boss that that should be the core issue for us all.
It clearly would be absurd if hon. Members or, more generally, animal welfare organisations adopted a blinkered, little-Englander attitude that effectively was hypocritical, and that suggested that by just improving matters in this country we could persuade other countries in the European Union to follow our example. We are in a single market and it is absurd to imagine that that attitude will achieve any improvement.
As the hon. Member for Thanet, North said, it seems hypocritical for those who are concerned about the welfare of calves to spend so much time concerning themselves with conditions in this country that we do not use all possible leverage in the Council of Agriculture Ministers


to achieve improvements throughout the single market. Cleaning up our act in the United Kingdom would simply be wasted energy if we did not, at the same time, try to make a real start on the Augean stable on the continent.
That is why the timing of the regulations is so important. Are we considering the regulations because Ministers feel that there is no real prospect of making major advances across the whole Union? After all, they are six months late; under the directives, they were due on 1 January. Are we doing so because we expect that, under the German presidency which starts at midnight tonight, there will be less or more progress in future? If we are seeking to lead, we must have a view about the best way to ensure that the regulations are replicated as soon as possible throughout the Union.
Of course it is to be welcomed that we are seeking to implement the directives, but the key issue remains: will the way in which we tackle the subject secure any real advance throughout the Union? It is true that, under subsidiarity, which is possible in this area, some member states can adopt stricter regulations than others. So be it —somebody must lead—but to be so far ahead that we are not leading anyone else at all would be dangerous.
There would be no point in any British Government leading from the front and merely taking British farmers along with them into the wilderness. Unfortunately, a balance does not seem to be struck in the regulations and in the negotiations that take place, of course, behind closed doors in the Council of Ministers.
On a number of occasions, the National Farmers Union has rightly said, "If you impose on British farmers regulations that they are simply unable meet on grounds of cost, you will merely drive them out of the market and let in others with lower standards in other parts of Europe." Animals in Europe clearly would not benefit from such a development.
The hon. Member for Thanet, North advanced a convincing argument on battery cages. I very much endorse his comments. We must be careful that we do not proceed so slowly by evolution—by tweaking here and tweaking there—that we end up with a cost that has no real benefit. Constantly amending and altering regulations may in the long term be more costly to the sector than the complete removal of battery cages according to a reasonable time scale. The most dangerous situation is that our industry is constantly having to adjust slightly at great cost, while other countries either lag right behind or are able to make a transformation in one step.
I very much endorse what the hon. Member for Thanet, North said about the total unrealistic attitude to inspection in schedule 1. The Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals has made a good case on the matter and I hope that we shall not mislead animal welfare campaigners or, indeed, the poultry industry by suggesting that the schedule somehow is adequate.
The schedule 2 regulations make it clear that the objective should be to ensure that calves should be able to hear, smell and see other calves, but the way in which the regulations spell that out will not implement that objective. Farmers have a right to be concerned that the cost to them has been anticipated and that the Government are prepared to put something in place to ensure that they are not out of pocket as a result.
Many hon. Members on both sides of the House would like to know why no effective action is being taken to prevent the export of 450,000 calves to systems that are clearly regarded by hon. Members and many others in the country as being inhumane. I endorse the comments that have been made by many hon. Members about labelling, but that is not sufficient to tackle the present problem. Clearly, United Kingdom regulations alone are meaningless if we seek such restrictions without at the same time tackling the conditions in which the calves will be treated when they reach a continental rearing system.

Mr. James Paice: My hon. Friend the Member for Thanet, North (Mr. Gale) said that he would rather see calves in veal crates in this country than in veal crates in Holland, because at least here we could be happier that they were being properly monitored. However, if I have understood the hon. Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler) correctly, he is saying that we should have ways of stopping the 450,000 calves being exported to Holland and elsewhere, primarily in veal crates. How could one do that within the single market, other than by persuading the whole Community to give up crates? The hon. Gentleman seemed to accept that we should work towards giving up crates throughout the Community, but he also seemed to suggest that there was something that we could do on our own to stop the practice.

Mr. Tyler: I am sorry if the hon. Gentleman misunderstood me. I agree that that has to be done within the framework of the single market and the European Union mechanisms. I was about to say—I think that the hon. Gentleman will agree with me—that it does not seem clever to me to take unilateral action and ban the export of calves, if by doing so we simply encourage livestock producers and those who are responsible for some of the conditions that we regard as inhumane in the other continental countries to expand their production. In present circumstances, if we were suddenly to ban the export of all livestock, including calves, the Germans would be laughing all the way to the bank. What would that achieve for the welfare of calves or for the livestock producers of this country?
Secondly, I do not believe that the regulations go far enough to ensure that calves are provided with clean and dry bedding. That seems a basic essential, and one that all those concerned with the issue have actively drawn to the Minister's attention. Nobody in the livestock sector feels that compliance would be too onerous.
Thirdly, I believe that the RSPCA's view that calves need to be fed at least twice a day for the first two weeks of their lives would be accepted by most farmers and livestock producers. They would regard it as sensible husbandry. There would be great support for that. The regulations insist only on feeding once a day, and I hope that the Minister will be able to satisfy us that that is really sufficient, and is not merely the barest minimum necessary to ensure freedom from hunger.
Much has already been said about pigs, and I do not wish to detain the House unnecessarily. We must recognise that there is a huge problem here and, as I have said to the Minister before, the pig sector, which has been going through a tough time throughout the United Kingdom, bitterly resents the fact that they are working not only to a different timetable but in a different direction altogether from their competitors in other member states. I hope that


when the Minister replies he will be able to assure us that, following the change of presidency, he will press the new holder to take a much more active role to examine ways in which the other member states can come closer to our time scale.
With farrowing crates and weaning, there is a genuine dilemma. Those who know a little about the subject—I confess that I do not know a great deal, although my retirement job could be to keep pigs—tell me that it is a satisfying occupation, as a former Prime Minister would be the first to agree. At farrowing and at weaning there is a genuine welfare dilemma between the welfare of the sow and that of the piglets. I am not sure whether the regulations take that fully into account. They certainly do not spell it out, and I know that many farmers would agree with the concerns expressed on the subject.
As for tooth clipping, we can all argue about whether it should be done at three, five or seven days or older, but the critical question is: who is to do it? It should be someone who is competent and has the necessary experience, expertise and training. That raises a general problem not fully addressed by the regulations. I believe that all people who handle livestock should have access to a recognised system of training, testing and qualification. That should be the basic essential, and it would meet a lot of the public concern.
As the hon. Member for Thanet, North said, tributes have been paid to the Farm Animal Welfare Council and its five basic freedoms; yet we must admit that the regulations do not provide those five basic freedoms—nor, of course, do the current objectives of EC directives or of the discussions taking place in the Council of Ministers. We are a long way off.
It would be deplorable if in any way the passage of the regulations meant that Ministers were prepared to relax their efforts in the EU, and were prepared to say to their colleagues in other member states and in the states seeking to join the Union that the situation is now less urgent; less of a priority. The regulations represent a short step in the right direction, but there is a great deal still to be done.
The critical issue is surely the fact that we cannot expect producers in a single market to adopt higher and higher welfare standards at higher and higher cost to themselves, and potentially to their customers, if they cannot see real improvements among their competitor countries as well —that includes third countries outside the EU that are increasing their exports into the Community.
As has often been said recently, both by the Commissioners and by Ministers, they are trying to open up markets to other producers, especially producers from the former communist countries of eastern Europe. But in those countries welfare standards, like environmental standards, are way below ours. It would be unreasonable to raise that iron curtain at the risk of doing huge damage to our livestock producers.
I believe that the five freedoms suggested by the FAWC are important, and that we should keep them in mind. But I seriously question whether the role of the FAWC can be maintained if we pay lip service to those objectives yet go such a short way along the road towards achieving them. Perhaps the time has come to have an independent animal welfare commission, which many organisations outside the House, and perhaps hon. Members too, would feel had more credibility, and which would be able to speak out

publicly when it felt that the Minister or the EU was not making sufficient progress towards achieving the five freedoms.

Mr. Christopher Gill: Before I say what I have to say, I must first declare an interest in the pig industry.
I agree with much of what has been said by hon. Members on both sides of the House, but I take issue with practically all of them when they say that standards will be changed by the various pressures that they describe. They have expressed many pious hopes, but I would like to illustrate my point with an example.
If we asked the chairman of one of the big retailers his view on animal welfare, we would get an answer that would please us. That is not unexpected, but we must bear in mind the fact that it is not the chairman of the big retailing company who actually buys the meat. The person who buys the meat is the meat buyer, who takes his instructions from a manager, who in turn has a clear directive from the board of directors of his company to make a profit. So, notwithstanding all the pious hopes expressed tonight, I have to remind the House that the commercial reality is that, with most of what is bought and sold—not only meat and meat products but other products freely bought and sold in the market—price is a very important consideration.
I want to draw the attention of the House to the parlous state of the pig industry. The hon. Member for Glanford and Scunthorpe (Mr. Morley) gave us the figures for pig production in the European Union. He explained how our production has fallen by 5 per cent. over 20 years, while that of our neighbours in Holland has increased by almost 100 per cent. in the same time.
I draw the House's attention to some other statistics. The first interesting statistic is the index of producer prices for agricultural products in the United Kingdom from 1985 to 1993, which starts in 1985 with a producer index of 100. For pigs, the index had risen by 1993 to only 101.2—in other words, the figure had scarcely changed for eight years. There can be scarcely any other product bought and sold in the marketplace today for which there has not been a substantial increase in price, or certainly an appreciation in price far greater than that experienced in the pig industry.
I draw to my hon. Friend the Minister's attention the fact that the pig industry is technically very efficient compared with the industries in Denmark, France and the Netherlands. The number of pigs sold per sow per year is higher in this country than in the others. Our food conversion ratio is better and our labour costs are better. On so many counts, our industry is far more efficient than that of our competitors.
We have a food and drink trade deficit of about £6 billion per annum; we still import 50 per cent. of our bacon; and, as anybody interested in agricultural matters knows, we have a surplus of home-grown cereals. Those three facts are three compelling reasons for helping rather than hindering the British pig industry. If the regulations are enforced unilaterally, as seems likely, we shall almost certainly see the increased importation of pork and bacon and a bigger surplus of home-grown cereals. I point out that those cereals are likely to be lower in value than previously and we shall see a larger trade gap.
My hon. Friend the Minister, who follows these matters closely, will agree that there will also be a knock-on effect on the abattoir sector where there has been massive capital expenditure to comply with the latest EC regulations. That in turn has created serious overcapacity, which is the inevitable consequence of modernisation. Nobody moder-nises and reduces capacity. With the installation of more sophisticated machinery and systems, capacity is increased. Yet all the time, the abattoir industry suffers from a shortage of livestock. That is a feature of the industry that the regulations will accentuate.
Pig farmers are unlikely to upgrade when they are already losing money. The additional costs under the regulations are estimated to be between £2.70 and £3 per pig. As several hon. Members have already pointed out, our competitor nations are not following suit.
It may be of some interest to know that last week, I visited the largest pig abattoir in Europe. Its throughput is almost double that of any abattoir in this country. One of the major secrets of its success is that it has guaranteed throughput. The abattoir is geared up to and bears the overheads for the slaughter and processing of 50,000 pigs per week. Unless the abattoir processes that number, the economics of running it does not stack up. The Danes are in the happy position of knowing that each and every week roughly 50,000 pigs will go through the abattoir. No British abattoir can make that assumption, and that creates a huge problem for the industry.
The regulations will do nothing to stop the rush of public companies leaving the slaughter industry. The end result will be serious for the domestic pig industry and for the domestic meat industry. The end result will be that there will be no pig processors with the financial muscle to match their continental competitors.
The pig industry has seldom, if ever, asked for help. It has stood on its own feet. There has been no subsidy. I invite the House and my hon. Friend to compare that with the position in other European Union countries where there is state aid, as we know. Our pig industry has fought its own battles. I draw the House's attention to the fact that it has a pre-eminent position in the world in terms of its breeding and husbandry knowledge and technology. The pig industry has solved its own problems. I need refer my hon. Friend only to the action taken by the pig industry, at its own expense, to eradicate Aujesky's disease. The pig industry is content to go on standing on its own feet, fighting its own battles and solving its own problems.
What the industry does not need and what it cannot afford is to be made to carry an unfair handicap. The regulations are an unfair handicap because they are being implemented in this country six or seven years before implementation in other countries of the European Union.
The Minister knows my views on welfare. The role of Government and the role of politicians in this area is, without doubt, to strike a balance between what is demanded by the welfare lobby and the commercial realities of the industry. If the welfare lobby had its way entirely, there would be few home-produced eggs and scarcely any home-produced veal, and practically every last slice of bacon would be imported. In those circumstances, where would all those foods come from? The answer, which is a plain as a pikestaff, is that they

would be imported from countries where the high standards of welfare that we want in this country, but which we are introducing prematurely, simply do not exist.
I urge the Minister to consider the practical benefits of a thriving pig sector in British agriculture: supplying a market in which the United Kingdom is not self-sufficient, consuming cereals for which there is no other demand, creating year-round permanent employment, sustaining a domestic abattoir industry and maintaining the United Kingdom's pre-eminent position as a leading exporter of breeding stock.
I urge my hon. Friend to give the House an assurance that the regulations will not be implemented unless and until the rest of the European Union does the same. I believe that failure to give that assurance means that the Minister will carry a heavy responsibility, the consequences of which will be with us for many a year to come. I ask my hon. Friend to be brave and resolute in defence of a vital British industry and to consider the requests and the pleas that have been made, not only by the British Pig Association, but by the National Farmers Union and other bodies representing the british farming industry.

Mr. Harry Cohen: My hon. Friend the Member for Glanford and Scunthorpe (Mr. Morley) made an excellent speech and I pay tribute to him. Labour is now radical on animal welfare issues.
Incredible and unimaginable cruelty is associated with intensive farming methods—none more so than with battery cages. I was disappointed that the Minister effectively said that battery cages would never be abolished. My hon. Friend the Member for Glanford and Scunthorpe said that, under Labour, they would be phased out and that we would try to take Europe with us on that issue.
The A-frame cages are appalling; they are the size of a piece of A4 paper. There is no space for the birds to spread their wings and there is chronic overcrowding. The birds cannot exhibit natural behaviour and they suffer injuries and ill health, as has been said. Salmonella, chicken cancer and herpes-related diseases spread as a result of the overcrowding. In those intensive conditions, there is a prospect of those diseases spreading rapidly to other birds, which would also affect human health. There are alternatives to that process, so battery cages should be phased out over a clear time scale.
This is not the time to talk about the transport of live animals, but those freedoms to which the Farm Animal Welfare Council referred—freedom from hunger and thirst and from distress, and the freedom to behave normally—apply to transportation as they do to battery hens and to other intensively farmed animals. We are moving further away from those freedoms and actions against cruelty to appease Europe's peasant farmers and, indeed, the rich boys in the farming industry.
On issue after issue, especially the transport of live animals, we have given up our animal welfare provisions and got virtually nothing in return. The gap is exceptionally wide. On transport, for example, we had a limit of 12 hours before animals were fed, rested and watered. It should be eight hours, as the welfare organisations, such as the RSPCA, suggested. In Europe, the limit is 24 hours and the compromise, apparently, is 22


hours. Europe continues to use battery cages, and, as has been said, will export the produce. There has been no significant progress in Europe to get rid of battery cages.
It is right that we have a veal crate ban and that is a credit to the Government, but the countries in the European Union still use them and there will be pressure on us to lift that ban—commercial pressure at least. We do not transport live horses for slaughter, but, again, there will be enormous European and commercial pressure for that to come about. We are not carrying Europe with us.
The Government refuse to use any muscle on the issues that matter, yet the European Community directives are unacceptable. We should be using the veto on many of the associated issues until an agreement which has animal welfare as a high priority is hammered out. That is the only way in which the United Kingdom can take the lead.
The Government should commit themselves to the Amendola report, which redefines animals as sentient beings and not as agricultural products. I urge the Minister to make that commitment.

Mr. Soames: I shall try to deal properly with the points raised. This has been a well-informed debate in which hon. Members have spoken not only with knowledge, but with passion.
I noted the views of the hon. Member for Glanford and Scunthorpe (Mr. Morley) on battery cages. The Government do not consider that a ban at this stage would be appropriate, for reasons which the hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well. It is also fair to say that I hope that the hon. Gentleman realises, although sometimes I am a little concerned about what he knows and what he does not know about the agricultural world—I am sure that he knows—that all systems of egg production carry some welfare risk. It is extremely difficult to discriminate between one system and another.
We have a good programme of research in that area and we are seeking, and we shall continue to seek, changes. Since the hon. Gentleman asked, I especially emphasise the nature of the change that we want. For battery cage systems, we are seeking an increased area per bird. We are also seeking environmental enrichment of cages by, for example, including perches and scratching bars, which is one of the points rightly made by my hon. Friend the Member for Thanet, North (Mr. Gale). We also expect the proposals to take account of the welfare needs of those laying hens which are not kept in battery cages.
By and large, the hon. Gentleman made a reasoned, sensible and well-informed speech, until the end of his remarks, and I shall deal with that matter in a minute.
Taxation is, of course, a matter for my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor, but I shall ensure that the hon. Gentleman's views are drawn to his attention. I do not expect that the hon. Gentleman knows, but it is accepted that any non-therapeutic procedure, such as tooth-clipping and tail-docking of piglets, always gives cause for concern. Anyone who deals with pigs will know that it is not always possible to limit the effects of aggression by other means.
I agree with what the hon. Gentleman said about marketing. Food For Britain is an extremely important and successful operation dedicated to exporting British agricultural goods abroad. It is doing a very good job. My right hon. Friend the Minister has made marketing the

absolute top priority for the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. I also note the further points that the hon. Gentleman made on that matter.
The only truly fatuous part of the hon. Member's speech was about animal transport. It is a matter of regret that my meeting with the welfare lobbies led to what is, fundamentally, a major breakdown in trust between them and my Department. For instance, I do not think that I shall be able to take the Compassion in World Farming organisation as being a credible witness on any of those matters again in the future.
The picture that the hon. Gentleman portrayed of my right hon. Friend's position at the meeting in Luxembourg was quite ridiculous. My right hon. Friend negotiated there, she saw the situation move in our direction, and she rightly took the opportunity to move along those lines. It is quite plain that we have now made progress and that there will be further progress in future.

Mr. Morley: rose—

Mr. Soames: No, I shall not give way.
Let me now deal with the points raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Thanet, North. Along with other hon. Members, I wish to pay tribute to his work as chairman of the all-party welfare group, because his comments were measured, humane and sensible, but extremely robust. He is also totally straight, and we know where we are with him.
On the transport of animals, my hon. Friend portrayed the case exactly as it happened. The tribute that he paid to my right hon. Friend the Minister is entirely justified. Of course, I accept that my hon. Friend, with his strong views, and with the dedicated and principled stand that he takes, will not be fully satisfied by the regulations. I listened carefully and made a note of what he said, and I especially note his views on battery hens.
I endorse what my hon. Friend said about the RSPCA and its food labelling initiative. However, on the general point of labelling, marketing is, essentially, a matter for the industry. It is not a principle of general United Kingdom food labelling law that information about methods of rearing or the type of animals should be required on food labels. However, voluntary indications of rearing methods are permitted, subject to the general provision—the point made by hon. Friend—of the Food Safety Act 1990, which prohibits the use of false or misleading descriptions of foods.
I share my hon. Friend's concern about some of those matters. I give him my word, at this Dispatch Box, that he may be reassured that we shall promote the very best standards of this country throughout the European Community, and that is the declared aim and intention of my right hon. Friend the Minister and of all of us who are involved in animal welfare matters.
The hon. Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler) talked about hypocrisy. Whenever Liberal Democrats start talking about hypocrisy, I am reminded of the man who talked of his honour, but the more he talked of his honour, the faster we started counting the spoons.
There is not a hair's breadth between my right hon. Friend the Minister and myself on the matters before us. She has been doing precisely what every hon. Member in the House would want her to do—proceeding in a robust, but sensible and pragmatic manner and trying to make realistic achievements in a very difficult forum. I note the


points that the hon. Gentleman made about schedule 1, about calves' bedding and feeding practices and I shall draw them to the attention of my hon. Friends who are responsible for those matters.
The hon. Gentleman also asked what other welfare measures we are producing. We are proud of our presently high standards, but, of course, it would be complacent to suggest that they are not capable of further improvement. We have undertaken—I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Ludlow (Mr. Gill) will be pleased—not to introduce any new measures on a unilateral basis if that would undermine the competitive position of UK producers. As a member of the European Union, we see the way forward as being through pan-European legislation and our aim is to see our own high standards accepted and adopted by our European partners.
In a bit of unbelievable waffle, the hon. Member for North Cornwall talked about the need for an independent commission on animal welfare. There already is one: it is called the Farm Animal Welfare Council. It is an independent body made up of members representing many areas of interest. It has total freedom to report, to recommend and to publish all that it does.
My hon. Friend the Member for Ludlow made an important speech. I accept and understand his concerns, and those of the farmers whose interests he spoke about today. However, I do not accept that high standards of welfare are inimical to profit. Indeed, at the Norfolk show today, I was shown by a major supermarket some excellent welfare-friendly pork which is achieving remarkable results in its stores.
I note my hon. Friend's views about the pig industry and I endorse them. It is a splendid operation and we value it. My hon. Friend is right to mention the difficulties in the abattoir sector. I note all the points that he made, and I can assure him that we will bear them in mind.
I urge the House to adopt these important regulations which will be of great benefit to animal welfare in this country. I thank hon. Members for taking part in such an interesting and well-informed debate.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,
That the draft Welfare of Livestock Regulations 1994, which were laid before this House on 14th June, be approved.

Orders of the Day — Services for Members

[Relevant document: Part of the Minutes of Proceedings of the Finance and Services Committee on 21st June (House of Commons Paper No. 518-i).]

8 pm

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: I beg to move,
That this House approves the First Report from the Information Committee, on The Provision of a Parliamentary Data and Video Network (House of Commons Paper No. 237), and the First Report from the Committee of Session 1992–93, on The Provision of Members' Information Technology Equipment, Software and Services (House of Commons Paper No. 737).

Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Janet Fookes): With this it will be convenient to debate the following motion:
That this House takes note of the recommendation contained in the First Report of the Broadcasting Committee, House of Commons Paper No. 323 of Session 1991–92, that a clean television feed of proceedings in the Chamber should be made available to Members in their Parliamentary offices on completion of the Parliamentary Data and Video Network; but endorses the Resolution of the Broadcasting Committee of 27th June, set out in the Minutes of Proceedings of the Committee, House of Commons Paper No. 533-i, that, in view of the information now available about the likely timetable for installing the network, work should be undertaken separately from the network with a view to supplying a clean feed to Members with offices in the Parliamentary outbuildings from the beginning of the 1994–95 Session, and thereafter as it becomes technically feasible in each outbuilding, with the aim of completing the process by the end of the Summer Recess of 1995, and that the House authorities should examine the scope for accelerating the provision of a similar facility to Members with offices in the Palace of Westminster, as part of the programme for establishing the network.

Mr. Bennett: I shall start by conveying to the House the apologies of the hon. Member for Keighley (Mr. Waller) who is not here. I think that he is lying flat on his back. He has had considerable trouble with his back over the past few months, and has had treatment for it—I am not sure whether he had an operation yesterday. I am sure that the whole House will want to wish him well.
We should be especially grateful to the hon. Gentleman. Many hon. Members, having spent two years working away to prepare a report for the House, would have liked to have their moment of glory and present it to the House. It would have been easy for the hon. Gentleman to say that we should put off the debate for a week or two, in which case he might well have been here to move the motion himself. However, he was especially keen that the report be approved as soon as possible, and that is why he asked me if I was prepared to move it on his behalf.
In moving the motion, I thank the specialist advisers to the Information Committee, Professor Bob Hynds and Mr. Philip Virgo, the Clerk of the Committee, and a large number of officers of the House who provided information and helped us a great deal in preparing the report. I also thank Richard Morgan, the computer officer, other members of the Information Committee and the user group that was set up, whose members provided us with a great deal of valuable information on the way in which networks work. In that regard, I thank especially Mrs. Bray and Mr. Crum-Ewing, representing the Westminster branch of the Transport and General Workers Union and the Secretaries and Assistants Council.
When I first came to the House some 20 years ago, I was a little surprised in some ways to find that there were still old scratchy pens in the Lobby and the Library, and there


was still an ink monitor. I notice that the ink monitors still work their way through the Lobbies occasionally; the Library has moved on from scratchy pens to biros, although sometimes they disappear more quickly than the scratchy pens.
That was about the only concession to modern technology within the building at that stage. One rarely found any computer screens. Even 10 years ago, it was not easy to find computer screens. However, if one now goes down through the Library, almost every desk has a computer on it; in many of the Departments of the House, computers are fairly commonplace, and the Departments are making excellent use of them.
Some hon. Members will have noticed the big improvement in Hansard recently. It used to be frustrating that Hansard finished reporting the day's proceedings soon after 10 pm. On many nights now, it is able to report almost to midnight, although the House has not been sitting until that time lately. It is fairly rare for there to be a carry-over from one day to the next in Hansard. That is a tribute to both the people who work in Hansard and the way in which they use the new technology.
Many of the Select Committee reports are now produced by the use of computers. That has cut down the repetitive typing work involved. We can see computers in the Serjeant at Arms' Department and in almost every other Department.
I suppose that the biggest improvement is the number of computers on the desks of hon. Members and their secretaries and researchers. Ten years ago, if we heard hon. Members, researchers or secretaries talking about computers, it was usually with a measure of fear and trepidation—they were wondering whether they could possibly give them a go. Nowadays, they are much more likely to be talking about which programme they should be using and how to get the best out of the programme to improve their efficiency. The House has accepted personal computers.
What we are talking about today is how to get the benefit of all those developments to help hon. Members' with their constituency work and to enable them to be properly informed so that they are better able to scrutinise the Executive—how we can bring it all together and get the full benefit of it. It is clear that that can be achieved only with a network.
We have now had an experiment. It took the House of Commons a long time to agree to an experiment, but just before the 1992 election it was agreed that there would be one. We have now done that experiment and the report on it is before the House tonight. Of course, there were some problems with the experiment—I would not claim that everything went perfectly—but it was extremely useful. Having looked at the report, the House has the opportunity to see the potential of the network.
The first thing that we must accept is that setting up the network will be expensive. There were a lot of fears in the Committee as to how much it would cost. The report makes it clear that it is difficult to come up with the precise cost for the network because of all the other implications, such as the fact that this is a historic building. I do not think that we have to worry too much about what happened 100 years ago; we must worry more about what happened 20 years ago in terms of the problems that arose when asbestos was found, and the fact that it was sealed up.
Much of the cost of putting in the network simply relates to putting the building into a good state of repair

and ensuring that we have the best facilities in terms of fire warnings, the telephone network and so on. I do not think, therefore, that hon. Members should be too worried about the cost. I have also noticed that as regards computers—they represent one of the few areas in which this has been happening—there has been a tendency recently for costs to come down rather than go up. I believe that the problem of cost can be overcome. I am delighted that the Finance and Services Committee supports the Committee's recommendations and that in the end the Government will not veto the expenditure.
The other worry from the Committee's point of view was the time scale. There are many worries about that. In many ways, it hinges on the attitude of hon. Members. Looking around the Chamber, I suspect that most hon. Members who are here tonight are probably sympathetic to the idea and would be happy to be moved out of their office for a weekend, or perhaps even longer, to facilitate the introduction of the network. Other hon. Members—probably those who are not present tonight—are less sympathetic to such moves.
The time scale comes down to the extent to which hon. Members, their secretaries and researchers are prepared to put up with disruption while the cabling work is carried out. I hope that there will be fairly rapid movement. I hope that people will be so keen to be on the network that they will be prepared to put up with more disruption. However, that is clearly a question of balance.
So far, I have talked about the first report—that dealing with the provision of a parliamentary data and video network. We are also considering the report from the last Session which dealt with the more difficult issue of the original recommendation of the top salaries review: instead of hon. Members' having an allowance to buy the computer equipment they needed, the House should provide them with it. The Committee again took fairly detailed evidence and, in the end, came up with a compromise. The Committee felt that it would be better to leave it to Members to decide at their individual discretion where to make their purchases, but that the House should offer a general recommendation. That is a sensible compromise.
When I first became involved with computers, I was very worried about them, but I was persuaded that using an Apple Mac machine would be easy. I do not think that I was actually told that any idiot could find his way around it, but that is what was implied, and it has given me some computer literacy.
It would be unfair on new Members coming into the House and to people coming to work in the House who had just started to master a particular computer system if they were then told that they had to standardise on a particular system which was provided by the House. When members of the Select Committee were in Canada taking evidence, we got the impression from some Canadian Members of Parliament that the fact that their House prescribed particular pieces of equipment and computer programs was rather restrictive.
I could speak at length about the reports, but I am conscious that we have a very limited time. As the mover of the motion, I shall be able, with the leave of the House, to respond to points raised during the debate. I shall finish with just one comment about motion No. 5, which deals with the live feed. That is tied in with the other motion because, unless we get the network, it will be very difficult to ensure that the live feed is available.
Some people have said that, if hon. Members can watch proceedings in the Chamber in their rooms, they will not bother to come to the Chamber. It is interesting to note that Tuesday and Thursday afternoons from 3 o'clock to half-past 3, the two occasions during the week on which Members can do just that—sit in their rooms, put on BBC2 and watch the proceedings—are when the Chamber is actually at its most crowded; people do take the trouble to come.
I find it odd that if I am able to get home early to the Barbican, I can, if I want, watch what is going on in the Chamber because it is on the network there, but I cannot watch it in my office in the House. I realise that it can be argued that it would be fairer if everyone were able to have that facility. I certainly hope that the House will approve both motions tonight.

The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Tony Newton): May I first take the opportunity to thank the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett) for his generous remarks about my hon. Friend the Member for Keighley (Mr. Waller)? The remarks were well deserved, given the amount of work that my hon. Friend put into the report. I am sure that he, like me, is grateful for the hon. Gentleman's kindness.
My main role in the debate is simply as Chairman of the Broadcasting Committee and as a member of the Finance and Services Committee in relation to the motion standing in my name on the Order Paper concerning what the hon. Gentleman just referred to—the provision in Members' offices of what is known as the clean feed of television pictures from the Chamber.
Let me take the opportunity to pay tribute to the helpful work, in the Broadcasting Committee's consideration of matters, of the Clerk to the Committee, David Doig; of the present supervisor of parliamentary broadcasting, Margaret Douglas; of her predecessor, John Grist and of our other adviser, Bob Longman, in enabling us to consider these matters.
Before I set out as briefly as I can the complicated background to the motion, I should just like to note—perhaps more in my role as Leader of the House—that this is the first debate following the creation of the new structure of domestic Committees after the recommendations in the House of Commons services report, known as the Ibbs report, with the House's assumption of financial control for its own accommodation and works.
The new service—in this case the parliamentary data and video network—is proposed by the relevant domestic Committee. The views of the Finance and Services Committee are available and the House is invited to give a general endorsement, which I hope will happen later this evening. Thereafter, the details of the implementation are a matter for decision by the Finance and Services Committee and the Commission.
I should perhaps say to the House that my right hon. Friend the Member for Southend, West (Mr. Channon), the Chairman of the Finance and Services Committee, hopes to be able to come to the House tonight in time to contribute to the debate, but he has been delayed on his way here. If

he is not able to speak, I may—with the leave of the House and as long as I do not shut out other speakers—speak later on behalf of the Committee.
Since the televising of the House's proceedings was approved on a permanent basis three years ago, there has been steady pressure from different parts of the House for Members to be able to follow events in the Chamber from their parliamentary offices. Even though the convenience of having the facility is obvious, it is fair to say that hitherto not all Members have favoured such a development. The division of opinion in the House was reflected in the Select Committee on Televising of Proceedings of the House, as it was then known, when it first considered the issue in July 1990.
While acknowledging the benefits that access to the clean feed would bring to Members—particularly those in the parliamentary outbuildings—the Committee rejected the idea on three main grounds. These were: the possible adverse effect on attendance in the Chamber; the possible element of intrusiveness in offices shared by more than one Member or in offices where there was only a thin party wall; and the cost of the necessary wiring and sets.
Two years later, what is now the Broadcasting Committee—which I now chair—reconsidered the subject following further representations from Members and decided that the position taken by its predecessor was no longer tenable. There were two main reasons for that change of heart. The first was that the availability to cable subscribers of the parliamentary channel's continuous coverage had brought home to many Members the existence of a facility which others could have, but to which they were denied access in their offices in the House. The second related to technological developments within the House, notably the proposed installation of the parliamentary data and video network which we are debating tonight.
As the Committee put it,
we believe that the deliberate exclusion from the proposed…network of the live pictures of the House's own proceedings would strike increasing numbers of Members as increasingly odd".
The Committee was undoubtedly right in that.
The Committee attached one important condition to its recommendation that the clean feed be included in the package of services. That was that, in order to avoid creating different classes of Members, the clean feed should not be available to any Members in any part of the estate until it was available to all Members in all parts of the estate.
That is where matters stood until the publication of the recent report of the Information Committee, to which the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish spoke just now. On the basis of more up-to-date evidence than was available to the Broadcasting Committee in 1992, the Information Committee invited the Broadcasting Committee to reconsider its recommendation on the clean feed on the grounds that the likely time scale for completing the installation of the PDVN was now significantly longer—up to seven years—than was the case when the Broadcasting Committee first discussed the matter.
In agreeing to the Information Committee's suggestion to reconsider, the Broadcasting Committee recognised two main areas of concern. One was the overall timetable for the installation of the PDVN in which the clean feed was to be included, and the other was the position of Members in outbuildings. Those in offices in Norman Shaw north


and south were seen as being at a particular disadvantage, as compared with colleagues both in the House and in other outbuildings with more modern facilities.
The Broadcasting Committee therefore asked the Director of Works to look at the feasibility of adopting a different approach which would achieve an accelerated provision of the clean feed to all parliamentary outbuildings. I would like to express my thanks to the Director of Works for the prompt way in which he has responded to the Committee's request and come forward with new proposals.
The proposals, if implemented, would mean that Members in all the outbuildings would have access to the clean feed by the end of the summer recess of 1995. The cabling work to achieve that would be carried out separately and in advance of the installation of the PDVN as a whole. But as a significant proportion of the cabling and ducting work can later be used in connection with the PDVN, the additional unavoidable cost of an accelerated approach to the clean feed is estimated to be very small in relation to the project as a whole—£60,000 to £70,000. I hope that the House will agree that that is a relatively modest sum for a worthwhile improvement in the services available to Members.
The detailed costings will, of course, have to be considered by the Finance and Services Committee and the House of Commons Commission, which Madam Speaker chairs. As the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish mentioned, I should point out to the House that some hon. Members may face some disturbance twice—once while the work on the clean feed is carried out and then again when the full network is installed. It is hoped that that disturbance can be kept to a minimum by concentrating work as far as possible during recesses—in particular, the summer recess.
The Broadcasting Committee accepted the revised proposals as a sensible compromise, which meets the legitimate concerns of Members with offices in the parliamentary outbuildings. In some cases—for example, No. 1 Parliament street and No. 7 Millbank—the necessary wiring is already in place and little or no additional work is needed. The Committee therefore also decided that it would be sensible if the feed were made available in each outbuilding as it became technically feasible, starting from the beginning of the next Session, 1994–95. That does not, however, affect the overall target date of the end of the 1995 summer recess for the completion of the process outside the main building. In effect, we are talking about a project to make the clean feed available to all the outbuildings in the course of the next Session of Parliament.
For Members in the main building, for whom access to the Chamber is much more convenient, the Committee has expressed the hope that the timetable for installing the PDVN, and with it the clean feed, can be speeded up. The Director of Works is already in the process of reviewing this matter, although I obviously cannot predict or pre-empt the outcome.
Those conclusions of the Broadcasting Select Committee are embodied in a resolution contained in the extract from the Committee's minutes of proceedings, which have been laid before the House. As the proposal from the Committee affects the convenience of individual Members and has possible implications for the way the

House works, it is clearly right that any decision in principle should be taken by the House as a whole. It is for the House to decide where the balance of advantage lies.
For my part, speaking in my capacity as Chairman of the Broadcasting Committee, I hope that the House will approve the motion standing in my name, as well as the other motion. At the same time, I should like to express my personal hope that the House will accept the propositions put before it by the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish.

Mr. Nicholas Brown: I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett) for introducing this important debate. In common with him, I support all three resolutions.
Before I proceed to discuss the matters of substance, I should like to identify the parliamentary Opposition with the remarks made by my hon. Friend and by the Leader of the House about the hon. Member for Keighley (Mr. Waller). We wish him a speedy recovery and we regret that he cannot be here tonight.
I should also like to thank the Leader of the House for usefully sketching in the background to the debate and, in particular, explaining the background to the Broadcasting Select Committee resolution which is before the House for consideration.
The House has been asked to express a view on a range of issues and our debate is helpfully informed by reports from the Information Select Committee and the Broadcasting Select Committee. We also have before us the resolution from the Broadcasting Select Committee, to which I just referred. Less excitingly for those in favour of reform, or any progress, we have before us the minutes of the Finance and Services Select Committee.
It seems perfectly clear that the majority of Members wish to retain freedom of decision-making in the provision of office equipment. That, frankly, does not surprise me. There are a range of reasons for that. The obvious ones are that different Members prioritise their work in different ways; different constituencies require different priorities from their Members of Parliament and some Members have support from other sources, whether commercial, through their own professional lives, or perhaps even from their own constituency parties, which are able to provide office equipment and other support that other parties and other constituencies cannot provide.
On page 7 of the Information Select Committee report, the consultants who recommended central provision of equipment claim that Members of Parliament wish to move from the 651 "tiny businesses" model towards a company model. That is highly unlikely to be true, and the responses from hon. Members which are quoted in the appendix to the report do not bear it out. The Committee accurately assesses the views of Members in paragraph 19 on page 7 and in subsequent paragraphs.
Hon. Members mistrust central provision and I think that they are probably right to do so. Decisions on matters of this kind should not be handed over to the Executive or to the Government's business managers—by which I mean the Executive and the Government business managers of whatever party and not just the present regime, although on previous occasions I have noted its authoritarian tendencies. In my view, Members should safeguard what independence of decision-making they have. Each of us


should be allowed to do the job that we have been elected to do to the very best of our abilities and we should each make our own decisions on how best to go about that.
I do not believe that there is much of a future for shared computer systems paid for from our allowances. The submission in appendix 15 of the Information Select Committee report, submitted by Consort Systems Ltd., suggests that we could all put our information on the same computer and ensure through encryption that the data files created and used by members of one political party could not be accessed by members of another party. The company goes on to recommend that different constituencies within the same political party could, however, readily transfer between their respective computers, should they wish to do so. That recommendation slightly misses one or two nuances about this place.
It occurred to me, however, that if we had such arrangements in place in the Treasury, a joint paper could be issued on its attitude to a single European currency. The Chancellor could make his amendments to the document, the Chief Secretary could then make his, and so on: the result would be one document, but its contents would depend on who got to it last.
A separate debate has been conducted on what should be provided physically for Members here in the parliamentary estate and what should be paid for separately out of our allowances. The Information Select Committee report cheerfully refers to equipment for Members' constituency offices. The truth is that there is no guaranteed provision of a constituency office for a Member of Parliament. London Members can use the House of Commons offices, but the rest of us have to pay rent, telephone bills, cleaning costs and equipment and staffing costs from our existing secretarial allowances.
There is a strong case for reviewing what hon. Members are expected to be able to do and what they should have provided for them in their constituencies and at Westminster. The conditions in Parliament are primitive when compared with other legislatures. For example, we are provided with telephones, but even in this day and age, if we want a facsimile machine, we have to go out and buy it. The parliamentary estate will, of course, provide us with the telephone link and cover the bill, provided it is run from the House.
The report from the Information Select Committee makes some useful suggestions about training and maintenance. Once those recommendations were in the hands of the Finance and Services Committee, however, it said that they would have to be paid for from existing office costs allowance.
The Information Committee report also contains a recommendation that lists of available equipment should be made available to Members. So far no one seems to have come up with a good reason why that suggestion should be thwarted, so perhaps that reasonably harmless recommendation might get implemented, unless its inclusion was an oversight on the part of the Government's business managers.
That brings me to the twin and related issues of the cabling of the parliamentary estate and access to the clean feed. In paragraph 7 on page v of the first report of the Select Committee on Broadcasting, we are told:
Whilst it would, in theory, be possible relatively quickly to provide the clean feed to Members' offices in those buildings (for

example, No 1 Parliament Street, No 7 Millbank and Speaker's Court) which are already cabled for the purpose, it would clearly not be an economic proposition elsewhere in the Parliamentary estate to undertake this work as a separate project in advance of the main cabling exercise described in the preceding paragraph.
That turns out to be completely untrue, as the resolution from the Committee meeting of Monday 27 June makes clear and as the Leader of the House made clear tonight.
The resolution is the unanimous view of the Committee and is presented to the House as such. Although I support it, it represents a compromise. It is intended to be as fair as possible to hon. Members in parliamentary outbuildings. The proposal is to bring the parliamentary feed to all the outbuildings by the end of the next Session and to bring the feed on stream at the beginning of the next Session where that can be done, notably at 7 Millbank and 1 Parliament street.
That raises a further question about making television services as well as the clean feed available to Members of Parliament. The retention of existing annunciators seems archaic and almost beyond reason. The sets cost more than conventional TV sets and convey hardly any information. Only a place like this could invent such an obtuse and pathetic method of conveying information. Those who favour the system can no doubt find someone else who wants to buy it.
Members of Parliament should have direct access in their offices to the clean feed from the Chamber, terrestrial television, Sky News and Sky Sport, as well as the central computer network support identified by the Information Committee. We should also have the same written statement as we have now, or something similar, to tell us what is happening in the Chamber.
An entire major British city can be cabled in a shorter time scale than that proposed by the Director of Works, under the direction of the Accommodation and Works Select Committee, for the Parliament building alone. I had an opportunity to listen to the matter being debated in detail in the Broadcasting Select Committee and I proposed that we bring in the private sector to do the job. My proposal was enthusiastically supported by the parliamentary Labour party representatives, but resisted by the forces of reaction represented among Tory Members We did our best to make progress but were constantly told that progress could not be made. I do not believe a word of it. The suggestion that it would take seven years to cable this building was absolutely ridiculous.
A further obvious thought is that the provision of support for Members of Parliament is decided in an episodic and essentially random way. This building and the collection of outbuildings surrounding it are not suited to the running of a modern Parliament. The failure to make a structured provision to support Members of Parliament exacerbates those problems. Every now and then, Back-Bench Members raid those issues and try to improve their lot. The Executive and the Government's business managers then try to claw back any gain that the rank and file have made.
Unfortunately, it is in the Executive's interest to keep other Members of Parliament as under-resourced as possible, so a huge fight is put up over relatively minor issues such as the provision of the clean feed. We are told that it is too difficult to provide the clean feed in Members' offices; yet every Ministry already has it. The Executive's professional advisers can monitor the Chamber at their convenience and entirely at public expense. The security


services, in their nice building south of the river, can also enjoy the clean feed, which is beamed across by satellite. But Members of Parliament cannot follow business in the Chamber while they work on other matters in their offices. Those arrangements clearly illustrate the priorities of the Executive. We should stand up for ourselves and assert the priorities of the House.

Mr. Andrew Hargreaves: I agree with the recommendations made by the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett) and I thank him for putting the case on which my colleagues on the Committee and our Chairman, who I hope will shortly be recovered, joined him for some two and a half years in careful study. The hon. Gentleman is an expert on the matter and I pay tribute to him for tutoring me on many aspects on which I was previously ignorant.
The experience of the Select Committee, which considered the recommendations for the information technology network, or PDVN, led us to concentrate not just on providing services for those who were technologically minded but on trying to make the technology really available and useful to hon. Members and Departments of the House, bearing in mind that hon. Members were not always computer literate and that therefore any system that we recommended must be user friendly.
Our recommendations were based on a pilot scheme, on which I was honoured to serve, the aims of which were primarily to decide the usefulness of the services provided by the network, the network's security, quality and technical reliability, the quality of training which hon. Members might receive, the quality of help desk facilities that hon. Members might need or encounter, and possible new services which might be available through the network. Colleagues on the Select Committee were not all experts or so-called computer buffs. Although many were experts, we were extremely careful to make recommendations that were useful and helpful to hon. Members.
Above all, we strove to ensure that the network and services, if recommended and adopted by the House, would be of real service to hon. Members, that they would be user friendly, and that those aspects of particular use to Members were concentrated on first. Typically, those would be the help desk and training, aspects of the parliamentary on-line information system, POLIS, easy access to information services such as news bulletins' easy access to procedural matters such as the selection of amendments which come before the House and in due course better access to Hansard.
The ability rapidly to transfer information between hon. Members, their staff and the House, and in due course their constituencies, was also considered at length. We considered carefully the provision of video facilities, television, teletext, the annunciator system, and so forth, bearing in mind that our recommendations should stand the test of time and be improved as and when new technology and finances were available. One of our principal objectives was to make the work of hon. Members and their staff in the House more time-effective so that they could serve their constituents better.
I am happy to commend the motions to the House, but I am extremely grateful for the motion commended by the Leader of the House because, throughout the Committee's

deliberations, I raised the matter frequently and was particularly concerned about it. It would be illogical to have a first-class PVDN system, a network and computer access to news bulletins without being able to watch our proceedings in the House.
The Leader of the House rightly referred to different classes of hon. Members—some with clean feed and some without. An invidious position has arisen whereby, as the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, East (Mr. Brown) pointed out, Ministries and others have the clean feed while hon. Members, whose job it is to scrutinise everything that goes on in the House and particularly what is produced by the Executive, do not. Furthermore, the custom has been broken so that the Whips Offices have the clean feed while some senior hon. Members, such as Chairmen of Select Committees, do not.
I am therefore particularly grateful to the Leader of the House for commending the motions. I hope that the House will approve them and I commend them both to the House.

Dr. Jeremy Bray: I wonder whether my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, East (Mr. Brown) chose the right target in blaming the Government for all the difficulties in the development of the field that we are discussing. I have known sufficient Leaders of the House and Ministers who have tried to press things on both sides of the House over the years. I am afraid that the administration of the House of Commons is the real obstacle—the vested interests built up in this place, with which hon. Members do constant battle. They are perhaps winning more than they used to.

Mr. Nicholas Brown: To clear the point up, I think that there is a great deal in what my hon. Friend says.

Dr. Bray: I am grateful, and I am sure that the Leader of the House—

Mr. Newton: If the hon. Gentleman will kindly allow another intervention, I refrained with great difficulty from intervening in the speech of the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, East (Mr. Brown), and I am grateful to the hon. Member for Motherwell, South (Dr. Bray) because, given how helpful I have been about this lot, I thought that the criticism was a bit unfair.

Dr. Bray: I think, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I ought to sit down at that point.
It is right to leave the provision of equipment to the individual responsibility of Members, to finance under their own office costs allowance. Individual procurement has produced, in recent years, a far faster rate of penetration of new techniques in the House than it would have done if there had been a centrally provided House of Commons service on the pattern of some past proposals that have been put to the House, which I, in those days, opposed.
It is a rapidly moving sector. Individual Members have their existing stock of equipment; they have different requirements; they have different types of software. It is sensible to leave it to their initiative, with the wide range of advice available to Members.
I see no harm in having registered suppliers. It helps to get Members going. It helps to introduce new technologies. The multi-media field will grow. Members will need help in getting their compact discs going on their machines and


so on, so there should by all means be some registered suppliers. However, those suppliers will never be able to compete with the prices that one can obtain in the mail order pages of the computer magazines, which we all buy on our way to and from our constituencies.
I see no harm in site licences for commonly used software, but Members will quickly drift away from any site licence standard. Some of them will want to upgrade faster; others will want to move more slowly, and any central licence provision would not cope with the variety of Members' needs; but that does not mean that, if there were a site licence, it would not meet the needs of some.
Training is always valuable, and I am sure that the idea of partly providing that in house and being prepared to buy in training facilities to meet peak demands, as at the beginning of a new Parliament, is a good idea.
As to the PDVN, on the initial question of the content of the services, yes, the live feed and the television access are obviously of common importance. However, for evidence of the data services available, we are indebted to the evidence from our own staff, from the representatives of the Transport and General Workers Union and the Secretaries and Assistants Council, who provided one of the only two lists of actual services that appear in the records of the Committee.
The Library, which provides the other list, makes an important distinction, on page 102 of the first report of the Information Committee 1993–94, between the "minimum services", which should be provided without a doubt—POLIS, CD-ROM server, Library and Statistical Section servers and so on—and what it calls "desirable services"
I think that the "desirable services" are essential for the development of an open and developing system: for example, the independent access by Members to the Press Association's Telpress service, the access to electronic mail—external electronic mail, not internal House of Commons electronic mail—to Internet, of course to JANET and to Super-JANET and the possibility of fax transmission, inward and outward, and fax storage.
The range of information services that will be available electronically will increase enormously in future, as almost all printed material is now generated by electronic means and the electronic form of it will become available to networks. I find it extraordinary that we have allowed the situation to develop where our own Library does not even have a site licence for access to Hansard.
We may be right in having forgone setting up the House of Commons Library as a copyright library, in the way that the Library of Congress is in the United States, but for us not to have access to the record of our own words is a bit rich. We should certainly make it a condition that all Her Majesty's Stationery Office-generated material should be available, free of charge, to Members through the House of Commons, in the same way that printed material is.
On the openness of services, the practical freedom with which that will operate will depend enormously on the use of industry-standard software and hardware in this place. I confess that I am more than a little alarmed at the jargon in the technical report on the actual type of network to be installed in annex A on page 15 to the memorandum from the Director of Finance and Administration and the Computer Officer. I am not sure, from that, the extent of fibre-optic use in the network and the extent of coaxial

cable or even twisted pair, but we are already wide users of fibre-optic networks in our own offices, and for that not to be the standard that is used throughout the building and outbuilding and so on seems absurd.
When, in my constituency, all my constituents will be on fibre-optic networks shortly—the United Artists network—they will want personal interviews with their Members on their own private channel in the Netherton ward of Motherwell on a Friday evening. I shall be happy to provide that, provided that that link is into my office, both at home, where it will be provided by United Artists, I am sure, and also from this place.
It is not only the hardware that needs to develop rapidly in terms of industry standards, but the software and the types of software that will be required. Nowadays, we have authoring systems with the capacity to produce those clever information booths, such as we have down below in the Meteorological Office weather forecasting terminal. The authoring of that type of service—public access, public inquiry systems and so on—will be well within the capacity of the good, competent research assistants that hon. Members on both sides of the House employ in large numbers.
We are in a hugely rapidly moving field, and unless we have open and industry-standard systems, Parliament will lag far behind. I think that the spirit of Members—it is clearly and well set out in the report—is to open it up and let it rip. I am sure that the my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, East is right—seven years is nonsense.

Mr. Spencer Batiste: I join in the tributes that have been paid to my hon. Friend the Member for Keighley (Mr. Waller) for the hard work that he has put into the preparation of the report. Given the speed of the cabling operations that are now under way in Leeds and Bradford, I like to think that, even if he is lying on his sick bed, he may be watching our proceedings at this moment. Whether that will hasten his recovery is a different matter.
There is no job specification for a Member of Parliament. Each of us chooses to do our job in the way that we best deem fit. For many of us, if not for all, a PDVN system is a fundamental necessity to do the job that we think we ought to be doing.
It seems to me that four specific aspects are crucial. The first is what we as individuals want out of the system. Members may want different things; they may want electronic mail or access to databases. I find the British Rail planning system quite useful—when the trains are running. It is good that we can have bolt-on services; they will give Members for the first time the chance to operate in an IT framework—most commercial and industrial organisations would have taken that for granted a decade ago.
We shall now be able to link the various services available in Westminster, in the Library and in Whitehall, and that will give us easier and more rapid transfer of knowledge, which will be all to, the good. As a result, we will be able to respond much more quickly to the needs of our constituents.
Increasingly, Members of Parliament want constituency offices with which they can communicate electronically.


Nowadays, our secretaries often work in the constituencies, so Members want their post dealt with there but printed out here, so that it can be sent off expeditiously. There is no reason why that should not be done.
I find access to the system from home invaluable at weekends and during recesses, particularly when I cannot use the excellent services of the House Library but want access to the latest information. I hope that Library briefs will be available on the system before long. I would find them extraordinarily useful when I am rung up by a local radio station at 8 o'clock in the morning and asked to contribute to a programme in an hour's time. It would be very useful to check information that may be discussed on the programme.
It must therefore be obvious that the Committee was absolutely right to dismiss out of hand the idea of central planning of what should be available. That will enable each of us to add to the system the peripherals that we find suitable. I am beginning to experiment with the CD-ROM drive and Hansard on them, and that too is valuable. I am sure that others will find it advantageous as well.
When the Committee visited other Parliaments to see their networks and to examine how they worked, I was struck by the arrogant element in the decisions by other Administrations to tell their Members what they needed —the poor dears could not understand the systems for themselves, so they had to have what was given them. It was noticeable that the equipment lacked the capacity to keep up with the times and could not reflect sudden changes, or indeed, provide Members with what they would have chosen had they controlled their systems and budgets themselves.
Similarly, it is absurd that Members cannot have a clean feed at the earliest possible opportunity. When it was put to us that the system would take about seven years to put in place, I was as horrified as everyone else. I do not think that any of us would be able to force a change of view, but in the Committee we expressed our horror at that delay. As has been said already, it would take that long to cable a major city in the United Kingdom. That cannot be right. I am sure that my right hon. Friend will give the matter serious consideration, and will press for whatever is needed to bring in a modern system at the earliest possible date.
The pilot scheme has proved a great success with the hon. Members who participated in it. The measure of that success is the number of other hon. Members who are asking to join the system, but who, because of its limited budgetary arrangements, cannot do so.
We have a flexible and easily adapted system for the future, and I hope that the House will give it its warmest approval this evening.

Mr. Archy Kirkwood: As a serving member of the Finance and Services Committee, I should like to make a brief contribution. Earlier, the Leader of the House said that this was the first debate following the creation of the new domestic Committees recommended in the Ibbs report, and it is therefore something of an historic occasion.
The motions before us have been produced by the House's own domestic Committees, charged with the duty of giving detailed consideration to all these issues. They have produced immensely useful work, and we should pay

tribute not only to the hon. Members for Denton And Reddish (Mr. Bennett) and for Keighley (Mr. Waller) but to the members of staff who assisted the process. The tributes to them all are well merited.
We are engaged in an important process, in which the House has the chance to take a view on the work of the Committees, so that their recommendations can be returned and implemented by the Finance and Services Committee and by the House of Commons Commission. This is the first evidence we have had that the Ibbs committee procedure is working, and I pay tribute to the Leader of the House for making as much progress as he has. He was made responsible for bringing the process together and for setting up the system. The comments made earlier, to the effect that the right hon. Gentleman is responsible for the delay, were very far from the truth.
I was heartened to find in 1984, only 12 short months after my election to this House, that we were turning our attention to what I considered the important question of information technology.
Unfortunately, nothing happened for the next 10 years, until the creation of the Ibbs Committee system and the new urgency with which the Leader of the House and the Chairman of the Finance and Services Committee dealt with these matters. That is all to the credit of the right hon. Gentleman. He will excuse me if I say that he is no power user of personal computers; he may be a powerful PC, but he himself would acknowledge that he is not a power user of PCs.
I am pleased that we have come so far so fast. It has been intimated that it may take seven years to implement the full system, and the Committee has found that acceptable. Now it is for the House to take a view, which is what we have been doing this evening. I am sure that the Commission and the Committee will pay careful attention to what has been said here.
I was impressed by the speech of the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, East (Mr. Brown). It is good to know that the official Opposition are so progressive. Some senior members of the Opposition—indeed of all parties —are Luddites, but we have to learn to live with these technologies as best we may.

Mr. Nicholas Brown: I do not know how closely the hon. Gentleman follows current affairs, but the Labour party is going through a period of transition.

Mr. Kirkwood: I can only hope that the PDVN assists the process.
We need continually to investigate better ways of doing our job. The hon. Member for Birmingham, Hall Green (Mr. Hargreaves) was right about that, and the hon. Member for Elmet (Mr. Batiste) also had some important things to say along the same lines. If one wants to improve the legislative process, the scrutiny of the Executive and our ability to represent our constituents' interests, we must always seek ways to improve the efficiency of this place.
Information systems which enable us to make better use of our time and resources must be embraced and welcomed, as far and as fast as resources allow. The transfer of information between Members and their staff and between Westminster and our constituencies will, during the next two or three years, become increasingly important.
Looking at the matter the other way round, the prospect of not accepting the recommendations and abandoning the


work that has been done is inconceiveable. The only question is how far and how fast we make progress. I hope that the House will assist that process by accepting the recommendations.
I have two caveats. First, I do not know what other hon. Members think, but being over-ambitious about targets with information technology can lead to grief. We must become accustomed to the idea of developing individual systems in order to meet particular needs. There are particular needs within the Departments of the House, within the offices of Members of Parliament and within the offices of the shadow administration and Ministers. They will all need their own refined systems to do their particular work.
What encourages me more than anything else about the burden of the report is that we are concentrating on getting the infrastructure right. I am sure that we should concentrate our resources on the main information byways and highways and getting in the cabling. I agree that we should be looking at fibre-optics as well. None of those things should be left out of the equation.
However, the main thing is to put in the infrastructure so that the basic system exists into which people can dip, using and developing it in an individual way to the best of their ability and according to their needs. The core services proposed are an essential minimum in order that the system can be developed.
The House will have to accept that some physical disruption will be inevitable if we are to speed up the introduction of the core system. I for one, as a member of the Finance and Services Committee, am prepared to face up to that. We also have to accept that there will be teething problems. But that is a small price to pay for the advantages that a properly run and used system can bring. The Finance and Services Committee considered the matter long and hard, and I am convinced that the investment is justified on a cost-benefit analysis in the long term.
As was mentioned earlier, the training element must not be overlooked. That is as important an investment as the infrastructure. The rate at which the system can be expanded and developed depends a lot on training.
I have two grouses that were referred to earlier, but which I wish to underscore. I make a particular plea for POLIS 3 to be developed as quickly as possible. It is a matter of some disappointment to hon. Members that we do not have access to the benefits and advantages of the higher specification of the system that was described as POLIS 3.
A particular plea must also be made, which I hope will go out from the debate, to the Commission and to the Finance and Services Committee, for better and direct access to Hansard on line. As the hon. Member for Motherwell, South (Dr. Bray) said, it is ridiculous that we do not have access to downloaded texts from the Official Report.
If people are complaining that Whips have access to clean feed, at least it tells me, as a member of the usual channels in this place, where my 22 Members of Parliament are or are not at a given time. If we put cameras in some of the Bars, such as Annie's Bar, that would also help the Whips. I would go for full surveillance on some Back-Bench Members. [Interruption.] I may get into

trouble as a Liberal Democrat for saying that, so I withdraw it. I was getting carried away with my own rhetoric. The clean feed is as important to Whips as it is to other Members, and the sooner we have it the better.
Critical mass is an important element to the success of any proper network. The faster that people are signed up and make use of the network, the more use it will be to all of us. Between now and the next election will be a critical period for us. If we can use the intervening two or three years to put the core infrastructure and training in place, when the new intake comes, as it will, the new Members will be much more willing to embrace the system if we can offer it to them with training as soon as they arrive here. That is a great opportunity that we must not miss. If we do, it will be another four or five years before we have the same opportunity.
I am grateful for the work that has been done. This is an encouraging report, which I hope the House will embrace with enthusiasm.

Mr. David Shaw: I join those hon. Members who have paid tribute to my. hon. Friend the Member for Keighley (Mr. Waller) who has worked hard on the Information Committee in the past few years and with whom I have had regular discussions about the progress of the work. I am not a member of the Committee but I have taken quite an interest in the parliamentary data and video network. It is important. I am also grateful to the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett) for the way in which he introduced the report today.
It is a good report which covers a number of aspects of the parliamentary data and video network. It leads hon. Members into a difficult area in a readable manner.
I pay tribute also to the staff who work on the parliamentary data and video network and to the consultants. Although they are not official House of Commons staff, they make it possible for us to join the network, and they work hard to connect our offices to it. I have had some favourable experiences. I am glad that my staff are connected to the network, and that I even have my own sub-network below the PDVN that allows me to communicate directly with my staff.
I look forward to getting full control of the system this summer, to reduce the 80,000 pieces of paper that I estimate go through my office in a year. If we are honest, as I am sure we are, I am sure that we would admit that the odd piece of paper occasionally goes missing. How much easier it would be if many of those documents could be electronically captured and accessed with modern technology. I hope that will be one of the benefits of my office going as near-electronic as it possibly can in the next 12 months.
The proposal before us is modest. It is a question of catching up not with 1994 but with some years back. Members of Parliament are dangerously behind in relation to the rest of the country. University students and others have moved on to electronic networking in their universities and beyond, to communicate worldwide. I am working with a number of schools in my constituency to help ensure that their pupils will be at the forefront of information technology education, so that Dover can attract the employers of the future. We want to compete for jobs with not only Europe and the rest of the country but —dare I say it—with my colleagues in the House in



attracting the employers of the future, who look for young people trained in computer technology. It will be no use if Members of Parliament do not take the lead. Our constituents expect us to do that, and to understand the technology.
I examined, as an accountant might do, the cost of the proposals. For a few years, it might cost £3,000 per annum per Member of Parliament. I remind the House that many of our constituents possess £3,000-worth of electronic equipment in their homes, perhaps without realising it—let alone in their offices. One pensioner wrote to me about his NICAM stereo video recorder, which cost more than £1,000. He is not particularly well off but is housebound, and regards that piece of equipment as important to him. If one adds the value of other domestic electronic equipment to be found in the homes of many of our constituents, it totals a considerable sum.
The proposed expenditure is small by comparison with businesses. If one visits a senior manager's office in one's constituency or in the City, one will see secretaries using electronic equipment worth £20,000 or £30,000 that serves to connect the office with any part of the world. Many secretaries in London and throughout the country communicate on behalf of their bosses and companies with offices in Japan, America and elsewhere.
It is important that Members of Parliament consider the PDVN not only on an insular basis, in respect of the House and Westminster, but how it might be used in communicating with the rest of the world.
It is no good, however, if in doing so we set up a system that—according to the timetable in the report—might be installed by the year 2001, when many of our constituents have been using it since 1990 or 1992. The system must be modern and appropriate, and must enable us to communicate better with our constituents and take up their cases in Whitehall as soon as possible. We should accept nothing less than a one-year timetable; otherwise, perhaps heads should begin to roll.
I do not mind if it takes a little over a year if the excuses are good, but I do not think that "There is a lot of asbestos in the basement of the House of Commons" or "This is an old building" are acceptable excuses. We must find ways of modernising the building to meet the needs of the modern age. I am fed up with the mice in the Tea Room and the quill pens in the Library: we should be operating in a proper environment, facing the electronic age and obtaining speedy questions to the representations of our constituents.
Electronic mail and the PDVN must be introduced rapidly. I am not referring just to communications within Westminster; I am thinking of communication with Government Departments when we take up our constituents' cases, and communication with those constituents.
The United States Congress has just begun an experiment. Through the Internet, a number of Congressmen are now receiving electronic mail from their constituents, and Congress committees can be contacted by that means. I know that because I recently joined the Internet, and have been communicating not only with people in America but with people all over the world. I have taken evidence for the Select Committee on Social Security from Americans whom I contacted by posting to a news group: ordinary American citizens have contributed information about the American child support system by that method.
All that is possible, but we are taking things far too slowly. We are not obtaining information that is available in the rest of the world. As my hon. Friend the Member for Elmet (Mr. Batiste) said earlier, we should be putting the Library on to the PDVN and making all its services—briefs and reports, for example—available to hon. Members in their constituencies. Hon. Members such as myself whose offices are in Millbank should be able to gain access to our offices from the Library via the PDVN when there are a large number of votes, as there will be in the next few weeks: there should be terminals in the Library for that purpose.
The PDVN should be wired up to the Internet as soon as possible. The Internet is connected to some 2 million computers worldwide, and 40 million people are believed to have access to it. It has contact with 60 countries, and I understand that it is connected to 18 coffee houses in San Francisco. As the hon. Member for Motherwell, South (Dr. Bray) pointed out, there is a British system—Janet and Super Janet—which could be connected with the PDVN, and would provide a number of services for university students. Not only would it allow them to send questions to Members of Parliament; it could be a two-way process, allowing Members of Parliament more access to research work in universities and colleges.
Some hon. Members will be concerned about the security implications, but we should consider all the possibilities. Unless we establish the right operation in the House of Commons, we shall not even begin to do that. It is perverse that I can read President Clinton's diary and find out his appointments—[Interruption.]—perhaps not all his appointments—when all too often I am not informed about when Ministers are coming to my constituency.
We must address the issue of the PDVN and the Government databases. There are all sorts of databases in Whitehall that the Government make available to corporations and the corporate sector. Use of the databases is charged at £60 or £70 an hour and Members of Parliament do not have access to them under the present arrangements. That is wrong. We must have access to all Government databases so that we know what statistics and information the Government are producing. 
The PDVN must be made accessible in some way—I accept, in a secure way—to the public. We have to find a secure way of separating use by Members of Parliament from public use. There are companies that have worked out how it can be done. I understand that DEC has resolved the problem in America for its access to the Internet. It has set up a separate and secure access system.
Since I have been on the Internet I have noticed a number of people out there who want access to Hansard. Many people have asked whether they can access the work of Parliament and the Government. I am grateful to the hon. Member for Motherwell, South (Dr. Bray) because one learns something new from every debate. I had not fully appreciated the significance of the fact that "HMSO" appears on the bottom of Hansard. I was shocked to learn that as a consequence we have now given up the copyright. That is totally unacceptable. We must take back that copyright. We must make Hansard available not just to members of the British public but to members of the public all over the world who want to see what the British Parliament is up to.
We are the mother of Parliaments and we are regarded by many people in the Commonwealth countries and in many of the 60 countries on the Internet as a Parliament


that debates issues of the day in a way that they would like to discover. We should be making available to the rest of the world our debates and discussions. We must continue to be a leading Parliament.
I should like to see us using our PDVN to access information in Europe. I want to have more control over Brussels. I am not satisfied with our control and influence over European issues in European debates. We should connect our PDVN so that we can access databases on the continent.
Parliament is about conveying information. It is about using our speeches and words in our constituents' interests. It is about controlling the Executive and controlling the use of information that should rightly be available to Members of Parliament. We must move forward. The report is about moving forward and we should fully support it and the work of the PDVN.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Morris): Order. Five hon. Members wish to catch my eye and we have about half an hour before we have to wind up. I make a plea for concise speeches.

Mr. Ray Powell: I do not understand why the hon. Member for Dover (Mr. Shaw) objects to the provision of mice in the Tea Room. He should come to the Labour side where we have two who entertain us regularly after 11 o'clock. We have no objection to some of the mice in the Tea Room.
I am a member of the Finance and Services Committee, and I am pleased to support the motions in the names of the Leader of the House, the hon. Member for Keighley (Mr. Waller) and my hon. Friend the Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett). I congratulate them on their hard work and progressive achievements. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Denton and Reddish for presenting the report.
I thank all the staff who have helped in the production of the report. I know of the tremendous amount of work that has gone into the production of the report and the motions. When we read the documents and the report, it is easy to appreciate the large amount of work that has been done by everybody. I am pleased that some of the hon. Members involved have been mentioned. We will all benefit from the reports.
The reports and resolutions to which the motions refer contain important proposals to provide hon. Members with the technological means to cope with the ever-increasing burden of parliamentary duties. The sooner the benefits of the proposed PDVN and the related facility of the clean feed of parliamentary proceedings are made available, not just to hon. Members and their staff in the outbuildings, but, as my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, East (Mr. Brown) said, in the Palace of Westminster itself, the better. I say that because we share an office upstairs above the No Lobby and we would be grateful for the provision of such facilities.
I have the honour of being Chairman of the Accommodation and Works Committee. I have been privileged, along with my colleagues and their predecessors, to have played a part in on-going efforts to bring

accommodation and facilities for hon. Members, their staff and House staff up to a reasonable standard. That has meant the acquisition and development of a number of outbuildings near the Palace of Westminster—an exercise which has recently yielded 127 extra offices for hon. Members at 7 Millbank and which will reach its culmination in 1999 when the exciting new parliamentary building, designed by Michael Hopkins and his partners, becomes available to hon. Members. Perhaps, Mr. Deputy Speaker, you will have noted that the facilities mentioned in the report will not be installed until seven years after 1999.
In recent years, enormous strides have been made to improve the standards of hon. Members' office accommodation, which has now transformed the parliamentary estate into a campus of buildings. That welcome development emphasises the need for modern and effective methods of communication, and dictates that the technological means to bring about better communication must be in place as quickly as possible.
I emphasise, however, that most major works projects in Parliament are necessarily limited to the summer recess. That, coupled with the need to minimise inconvenience, means that some projects need to be phased over more than one summer recess and, in some cases, over more than one year. It is important to understand that the programmes of work inevitably cause disruption and mean that Members and staff have to be relocated temporarily while their offices are refurbished.
My Committee has foremost in its mind the need to ensure that disruption is kept to a minimum and has instructed that all necessary steps, including consultation with those who will be affected, be taken to achieve that aim. That requires the co-operation and understanding of those involved. The report states that 327 hon. Members replied to the survey, and just over 50 per cent. stated that they wanted the facility. Members must appreciate, therefore, that there will be some disruption to their normal working life, even though it might be in the summer recess.
I pay tribute, and it is rarely paid, to the Serjeant at Arms, the Deputy Serjeant at Arms, the Deputy Assistant Serjeant at Arms and particularly to Judy Scott Thomson and all the staff. They should be congratulated on the work that they have undertaken in speedily, readily and efficiently informing hon. Members of disruption while works are carried out.
Hon. Members will recall that in March 1992, after the House had approved the Ibbs report but before the establishment of the Finance and Services Committee, the House approved the design of the new building in the first debate on a report from the Accommodation and Works Committee. My colleagues on the Committee and I will continue to monitor the progress of the new building. Should the House so decide, we will play our part in planning for the introduction of the new network of services as quickly as is practicable.
As for the video side of the network, I accept the importance of Members being able to receive a televised clean feed of parliamentary proceedings in their offices, and I hope that serious consideration will be given to providing a satellite as well as a terrestrial broadcast. The value of regular televised news broadcasts was proved during the Gulf conflict, and Sky already provides a satellite service to the television viewing room. I hope that that aspect of television viewing can be incorporated into the planning for television reception for Members.
I should say a lot more, but I realise that time is moving on, and my colleagues want to participate in the debate. Finally, I must point out that, as a result of the introduction of the overdue new facilities that we propose, some Members may not attend the debates in the Chamber. We all appreciate that Members serve on Committees. I refer in particular to the Leader of the House, whom I see so often in Committees that I attend; he cannot be expected to be in the Chamber all the time as well.
I hope that people outside the House of Commons appreciate that Members of Parliament have other duties to perform, and realise that they may be serving the House and yet not in the Chamber. I hope that the media will play their part in ensuring that people outside Parliament understand that dilemma confronting Members of Parliament, and will not expect them to be in the Chamber for each and every debate.

Mr. John Mc William: I preface my remarks by declaring an interest as a Member sponsored by the National Communications Union, because what I say concerns the telephone system too.
I congratulate the hon. Member for Keighley (Mr. Waller)—my fellow vice-chairman of the parliamentary information technology committee—my hon. Friends the Members for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett) and for Newcastle upon Tyne, East (Mr. Brown) and the Leader of the House on their speeches and the clarity of their remarks.
Unfortunately, as my hon. Friend the Member for Motherwell, South (Dr. Bray) said, some of the material is not clear. I am looking at the PDVN pilot technical review, and it looks as though what is being proposed is the tree and branch network, the branches being twisted pair. The old annunciators use one twisted quad, and the proposed network looks somewhat long in the tooth even now.
My hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, East said that it took as long to cable this building as it takes to cable a major city. He is right, but that is only because of the method selected for this building. That need not be the same as the method selected for the outer buildings. As a result of the recommendations of the old Computer Sub-Committee, which I had the honour to chair 10 years ago, and which produced the original report, they were designed to take those possibilities on board.
This building is technically an extremely difficult building to cable—but cable technology has not stood still in all that time, although to read the document one might think that it had. There have been developments such as blown fibre cabling; fibre optic cable can blown through existing conduits without disturbing anything. If a fibre optic cable comes in contact with a 250-volt bare wire, nothing happens: it is a better insulator than the insulation round the cable. So we do not need to worry about that.
We could use far more inventive ways of cabling the building. I grant that that would cost a little more because of the cost of terminal equipment, but much of that cost would be saved. I note that another part of the report deals with the fire alarm system, the security system, the telephone system, the data system and the video system. They can all go through the same fibre, and still leave masses of spare bandwidth capacity, if it is done on a

switch star rather than a tree and branch basis. I am sorry to have to use such terms, but there is no other way of describing the systems.
We do not know what our successors in Parliament will need in 10 or 15 years' time. Things have changed dramatically in my 15 years in the House. The amount of paperwork, the things with which we have to deal and the information to which we need to have access have increased; the rate of change has been logarithmic and will continue. The people sitting in our places in 10 to 15 years' time will have a different perception of the system.
The system must be resilient to technological change, so it must have the inherent bandwidth capability to take those developments. The system proposed at present, especially in this building, will not be able to do that. The position is easier in the outer buildings because they have wiring trays. It is difficult to cable in this building, but if we were imaginative, if we used new cabling technologies and if we were prepared to pay a little extra—although we could consider hanging the other systems on the fibre optic system—we would not have to wait until it was nearly time for me to retire before getting the system in this building. We could have such a system quickly and reasonably inexpensively, and we could get it done without detriment to the architectural heritage of this building, which is extremely important. We can get it done to cope with the reasonable needs of our successors in 10 to 15 years' time.

Ms Janet Anderson: I endorse the thanks given to hon. Friends, other hon. Members and staff of the House who have made this debate possible. I have a particular interest in it. I first came to the House more than 20 years ago as a secretary. In those days, secretaries did not have individual telephones and we still used manual typewriters with carbon paper and flimsy copies. We have moved on, but not far enough.
The Information Committee report concluded:
We recommend the phased introduction of a full Parliamentary Data and Video Network. It is a principal function of Parliament to oversee the actions of the Executive. Members have a responsibility to represent their constituents effectively. In both these key areas, we consider the provision of a full network would greatly increase the efficiency with which the House operates and the capacity of Members to cope with increasing workloads.
Before compiling the report, the Information Committee conducted a questionnaire among Members of Parliament. More than 50 per cent. returned the questionnaires and more than half expressed a wish for the direct reception of the televised proceedings of the House. Direct access from their personal computers to the Official Report was requested by more than half who replied and almost as many required access to POLIS—the parliamentary on-line information service. Many showed an interest in having direct access to external information services, such as the F1' Profile which provides the ability to search for and retrieve the full text of items drawn from daily newspapers and other publications.
The pilot scheme, to which hon. Members have already referred, has been successful and has been used extensively by members of staff as well as by Members of Parliament. Among the benefits of a full network would be direct access at any time to the Library and other information services, both from within and outside the parliamentary estate.
As other hon. Members have said, such a system is especially important for Members who feel it increasingly important to have constituency offices. The majority of Opposition Members have such offices and I believe that many Conservative Members do as well.
The use of electronically stored newspaper reference services, such as the FT Profile, and services now available on compact discs and CD-ROM in the Library are seen as a major benefit. CD-ROMs, although not necessarily providing full information, are cheaper as once they have been purchased, their use involves no further cost. Such cost considerations must be a major factor in any decision on the future expansion of the service.
I believe that the service would enable hon. Members and their staff to make more effective use of their time and resources, which are always fully stretched, as we know. It would also help, certainly in the initial stages, to reduce the demand from Members on overworked and over-burdened Library staff who provide an excellent service for us all, but who must surely long for the day when we do not have to bother them with more trivial inquiries. That would no longer be necessary if all hon. Members had access to the data and video network.
We are sent here by our constituents to represent their interests. We have a duty to ensure that we can do that as effectively as possible. As the Information Committee report concluded, the provision of a full network would greatly increase the efficiency with which the House operates and the capacity of Members to cope with the demands of their constituents.
Therefore, we have a duty and a responsibility on behalf of our constituents to do what we can to ensure that a full network is provided for all hon. Members and their staff without further delay. I hope and feel that that is the mood of the House tonight.

Mr. Andrew Miller: The Select Committee on Information was my first taste of the Committee process in the House after I was elected in the 1992 election. I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Keighley (Mr. Waller), for his sterling work in chairing the Committee and, indeed, to the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett), who moved the motion, because he has also done a tremendous amount of work on behalf of fellow Committee members.
I joined that Committee as a result of a conversation with the hon. Member for Jarrow (Mr. Dixon) in which I expressed my frustration, as a new hon. Member, about the inadequacies of information technology in the building. At that, the hon. Member for Jarrow invited me to join the Select Committee on Information, and, as hon. Members will know, invitations from the hon. Member for Jarrow are not readily refused. I was delighted, because not only did I find myself at the heart of the debate about information technology, but, of course, because the Committee has important responsibilities in respect of the Library, which provides a sterling service for us all.
The hon. Member for Motherwell, South (Dr. Bray) made an interesting comment on the possibilities of what can happen from his house because of the evolution of IT systems. I find it quite extraordinary in this day and age that the gas board cannot lay a gas main to provide a

service to my house, yet I can communicate with my constituency office and with my parliamentary office using the parliamentary data network in its pilot form. That network facility would greatly improve the efficiency of the operation of Members of Parliament and, indeed, improve the efficiency of the communication of information to our constituents, who are entitled to receive all information which emanates from this place.
Only this week, I have needed to write a complicated letter in relation to a case which is currently in front of the Police Complaints Authority. That letter related to an enormous amount of files, some of which were here and some of which were in my parliamentary office. Instead of having to wait until next weekend, when I could get my hands on all the documentation, it was possible to put together the documents, have the letter typed at the other end, and have it checked, printed and signed by me at this end. Our constituents ought to demand such a service from us and I know that, increasingly, they will do so, because that is the sort of service that they will get from companies operating in the big, wide world outside.
The Committee looked at the network and studied a number of examples of what happens in other countries. My hon. Friends have mentioned the Canadian system and the United States system, but one incredible statistic in the report is that, of all the countries in Europe, with the exception of one—Turkey—we do not have a parliamentary network. That is an extraordinary omission on our part and we are doing an enormous disservice to the efficiency of our offices and our constituents by not joining the current part of this century, let alone looking forward.
One of the most basic facilities that I use heavily, which I commend to hon. Members to improve effectiveness, is the ability to control one's diary from three places simultaneously. It is an incredibly powerful tool. It needs some managerial control, or all sorts of people may end up controlling one's diary, but, with proper control, such facilities are possible.
Recently, I found that I needed to communicate with an organisation in Geneva, with which I have had a number of contacts over the year. I did that simply by sending an E-mail message. It cost little more than the price of a local telephone call for the message to get into the Geonet network and be picked up by the mail box holder at the other end. It is a secure system; it works; it is efficient; and it is cheaper than transmitting all the message in a conventional telephone conversation. That is the sort of technology that this place needs.
The services of the Library have been mentioned at length. The provision of those services through an extension of POLIS will be of enormous benefit to hon. Members on both sides of the House.
I shall refer to the comments that have been made about cabling and the timetable. It is clear that we should examine—what my hon. Friend the Member for Blaydon (Mr. McWilliam), with his expertise in telecommunications, said is right—the cable technology of tomorrow in the context of all the low-voltage services that we need around the building.

Mr. McWilliam: My hon. Friend should understand that I was talking about the cable technology of today, not the cable technology of tomorrow.

Mr. Miller: I totally accept that, but the reason why I used that expression is that I believe it is technology that


has a long lifespan ahead of it because, unlike many other areas of technology, it is very much the limit of known transmission knowledge, without going into the wireless field which would present us with all sort of other problems, although that might have to be examined. The services that we must examine in that context—the network, fire services, telephone services, television, clean feed, and security—can all be dealt with in one cable network.
As a member of the Information Committee and an enthusiast for dragging this place into the 21st century—although I believe passionately in the need to protect the integrity of old buildings—I could speak at length on this subject, but I realise that other hon. Members want to get in before the end of the debate. I shall therefore conclude my remarks by saying that if we, as parliamentarians of one mind, are determined to drive the programme forward, we can cut down the time that is needed to develop it. On that basis, I commend the report of the Information Committee to the House.

Mr. Neil Gerrard: As someone who used the pilot scheme, I am glad to be able to make what will obviously be a brief contribution to what has been a non-contentious debate.
When I entered the House, having worked as a computer network manager previously, I must confess that I was somewhat taken by surprise at the low level of development of information technology systems in the House, the variety of systems in use, their incompatibility, and the virtual absence of training for hon. Members and their staff. I suspect that we all know what the results of that have been: inefficiencies of various sorts, equipment bought which is probably not very good, poor usage of systems and duplication of effort—an enormous waste of time by people searching for the same information.
Of course, this place uses and generates a vast amount of information. As several hon. Members have already pointed out, if one looked at any public or private sector organisation, one would see that we are years behind in the development of information systems.
I am sure that hon. Members realise that the network will not cure all ills. I am sure that the hon. Member for Dover (Mr. Shaw) knows that it is perfectly possible to lose a piece of data just as comprehensively in a computer system as it is to lose a letter on paper.
I shall speak briefly about two issues. The first is the data services which are to be available. I think the core services listed in the recommendations are sensible, but I shall refer—as has been mentioned earlier—to the question of updating POLIS. That has been long overdue and as it develops it will improve access to other parliamentary information. That is where I think the priorities ought to be in the first place—on Library briefings and the inclusion of the full text of Hansard. As services such as those develop, and as access is gained to other external services, we shall find that—unless we get on quickly with the installation —first, we discourage users, and secondly, that the technology will be virtually out of date before the system has been completed.
The second issue is the question of training, and there are a number of aspects to that. The first aspect is persuading people to use the facilities which are available and showing them what is possible. I am a little disturbed

that the Finance Committee has suggested that none of the training should be provided directly for Members without the funds coming out of office costs. There is a case for providing some basic training free to improve people's efficiency and to ensure that they are able to use the network efficiently.
They must know what is available and how the software can be used. We will improve the network's efficiency if we do that. I shall be certainly concerned if people are not to be barred from access to the system while they are untrained. What will the effects be of large numbers of untrained people using the network? That will have consequences for the efficiency of the system for everyone else. If we are to consider extensions of the network into expensive external systems, databases and E-mail, it is almost essential that training is forced. If people are not trained, we shall have inefficiency and greatly increased costs, which will be money wasted.
I shall make my final point because we wish to hear from the Chairman of the Finance Committee before the debate closes. I am glad that my hon. Friend the Member for Rossendale and Darwen (Ms Anderson) mentioned that this is not just about producing systems for the convenience of Members of Parliament but about increasing our efficiency and enabling us to deal with our constituents better. We shall be able to produce answers quickly and get at the information that is needed to produce those answers quickly.
Another important aspect of our job is the ability to keep track of what the Executive is doing. It is important to bear that in mind. Someone listening to the debate might have thought that we were talking about our convenience and whether we could watch Sky Sport. While I very much like to do that, although some bits of it may irritate my staff, I am more interested in having parliamentary systems which enable me to do my job efficiently for my constituents.

Mr. Paul Channon: First, I apologise to the House for arriving late to the debate. I have been abroad on parliamentary business and my flight was late coming back. The second, and much more serious, thing for which I ought to apologise is the fact that I am perhaps the only layman in a Chamber of experts. I feel rather like Daniel in the lions' den.
Luckily the Finance and Services Committee have taken a course which was acceptable to the House—otherwise, I have a feeling that I would have been howled down. With the support of my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House, the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Mr. Kirkwood) and the hon. Member for Ogmore (Mr. Powell), the Finance and Services Committee has come to the right decision.
This, in fact, is the first occasion on which the House has had a debate such as this on a new service since the foundation of the Finance and Services Committee. The Committee was given the task of looking at the financial and administrative implications of recommendations made by Committees such as the Information Committee and the Broadcasting Committee. Like other hon. Members, I congratulate the Chairmen of those Committees on the splendid work that has been done. The Committee has considered the network in detail, both the justification for it and the cost of its provision. Given the hour and the fact


that the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett) hopes to reply to the debate, I will not go into that in great detail.
The Committee accept the benefits and those colleagues who are more technologically minded than I am, will understand them better than I do. We accept the argument that Members should be provided with additional modern facilities to help them, as the hon. Member for Walthamstow (Mr. Gerrard) rightly said, in their parliamentary duties, not just to have a bit of fun.
This is a complicated matter and costs are extremely complicated. We shall monitor developments closely each year as we look at the works programme and prepare the estimates that go to the Commission. We must be guided by the Information Select Committee and by officers of the House as to what services can be funded on the network. We do not, of course, want to overburden that system and its staff. We shall have to consider that factor every year in the estimates.
I note in particular what the hon. Member for Walthamstow said about training and obviously my Committee will consider that in the light of today's debate.
I am rather less keen on the clean feed than any other Member in the Chamber now, but I accept that the overwhelming majority of people want it and that the overwhelming majority are very upset about the seven-year rule. The Finance and Services Select Committee obviously understands that and we shall ask the Director of Works to report to us in the autumn about how a new timing might be achieved. I understand that it is the wish of the House to speed up all this work. The House would also agree, however, that we do not want to alter works projects at the last moment. We must go through the planning stages to avoid waste and create proper control.
With that proviso, the Finance and Services Select Committee supports the various projects. In doing so, I hope that the Committee is acting not only as the watchdog of finance in the House, by trying to get good financial management, but as the supporter of improved services for Members to help them to carry out their parliamentary duties.
In common with other hon. Members, I hope that the House will agree to the motions.

Mr. Bennett: With the leave of the House, I shall reply to one or two of the points that were made in the debate.
I always warn people that it is very dangerous when the House of Commons appears to be unanimous on something, because it means that trouble is afoot. We should be clear that, although a great deal of support for new services has been expressed by the hon. Members in the Chamber tonight, some of our colleagues are more cynical and sceptical about the proceedings. It is important that the enthusiasts should win those Members over.
My hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, East (Mr. Brown) was a little unfair when he criticised the Executive for trying to slow the process down. My hon. Friend the Member for Motherwell, South (Dr. Bray) was also a little unfair when he blamed officers of the House, because I think those individuals were won over to the benefits of change some time ago. It may be true that the

Clerk at the Table is not waiting to punch the Votes and Proceedings of the House into a computer, but an awful lot of officers of the House see the benefits offered by new technology.
We should be clear that, in many ways, it is our colleagues who are the biggest problem. I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for Ogmore (Mr. Powell) could tell us how difficult it occasionally is to persuade an hon. Member to move from one office to another. That is the major problem about the time scale. If everyone who spoke in the debate does his bit to persuade other hon. Members that putting up with a little inconvenience during a recess is worthwhile for the benefit of everyone else, we could make a great deal of progress.
I do not want to go into the technical issue of which cabling system should be used, but it is most important that the House keeps continually under review what is the most practical option. It is important that it considers the use of radio LAN because that could be a possibility for some parts of the building.
I do not think that I am leaking any information if I say that, on Monday, the Information Committee will be considering a report from the Department of the Official Report about the possibility of having the preceding five days' Hansard on the network. That would be very useful.
I should like to able to report to the House that the teething problems with POLIS 3 have been solved. Negotiations are going on in that respect and I hope that, by early next week, those will have been successful and progress will be made.
We shall have to return to the training issue. The more people want to be connected with Internet, the more important training will be.
The House must now make it clear to the country that we want to serve our constituents better. The network will give us the information to do our two key tasks—taking up constituents' problems and scrutinising the Executive—more effectively. I hope that the House will approve the motions tonight.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,
That this House approves the First Report from the Information Committee, on The Provision of a Parliamentary Data and Video Network (House of Commons Paper No. 237), and the First Report from the Committee of Session 1992–93, on The Provision of Members' Information Technology Equipment, Software and Services (House of Commons Paper No. 737).

Resolved,
That this House takes note of the recommendation contained in the First Report of the Broadcasting Committee, House of Commons Paper No. 323 of Session 1991–92, that a clean television feed of proceedings in the Chamber should be made available to Members in their Parliamentary offices on completion of the Parliamentary Data and Video Network; but endorses the Resolution of the Broadcasting Committee of 27th June, set out in the Minutes of Proceedings of the Committee, House of Commons Paper No. 533-i, that, in view of the information now available about the likely timetable for installing the network, work should be undertaken separately from the network with a view to supplying a clean feed to Members with offices in the Parliamentary outbuildings from the beginning of the 1994–95 Session, and thereafter as it becomes technically feasible in each outbuilding, with the aim of completing the process by the end of the Summer Recess of 1995, and that the House authorities should examine the scope for accelerating the provision of a similar facility to Members with offices in the Palace of Westminster, as part of the programme for establishing the network.—[Mr. Kirkhope.]

Orders of the Day — Landfill Site (Pitstone)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn—[Mr. Kirkhope.]

Mr. George Walden: I welcome to this debate my hon. Friend the Member for Hertfordshire, West (Mr. Jones), who shares the concerns that I am about to express.
My last Adjournment debate in the House was on new major roads in my constituency; the one before that was on gravel pits; and today's debate is on rubbish dumps. The Department of the Environment may feel a little besieged by my Adjournment debates, but many of my constituents feel that their villages are under siege.
I need only spell out the broad lines of the proposed landfill site near Pitstone in my constituency to show why its inhabitants feel threatened. The proposal is to infill a disused quarry close to half a dozen villages in an area of outstanding natural beauty with 500,000 tonnes of rubbish annually for 20 or more years. In any sane planning system, the Minister would rise to interrupt me at this point to say that my constituents can put their minds at rest and he and I can go home and get some sleep, because such a proposal is a self-evident non-starter.
I understand that the Minister is a keen cyclist. He would sleep all the more soundly in the knowledge that an area of outstanding natural beauty in the Chilterns will not be spoilt but will remain available for his and other people's recreation.
Sadly, however improbable the proposal may sound, that threat is real. Castle Cement Ltd., which used to operate a cement plant on the site, has made a formal application. The villages liable to be affected in some way are Pitstone, Ivinghoe, Bulbourne, Aldbury, Marsworth and Cheddington. Others will doubtless be added to the list. If the proposal goes through, I advise the Minister not to go cycling in the country lanes thereabouts, because he might be run down by a container truck carrying rubbish from his constituency of Ealing.
My constituents' fears will be familiar to the Minister: smell; traffic on small rural roads; damage to wild life; scavenging seagulls and rats; alongside numerous other unwanted bonuses that landfill sites tend to attract. The possible long-term pollution of the water table with leachate is another risk.
I know that there are complicated arguments about those matters and that Castle Cement has planned measures to deal with them. I have inspected its exhibition and know that it is a responsible company. But with so much volume going in over such a long period—3 per cent. of all the waste in south-east England—who can give guarantees? Is our knowledge so great that we can be sure what will happen over 20 years or more?
What is true of water is also true of land. We are told that the tipping will be of non-toxic waste, and I take that as true, but the Royal Society of Chemistry said:
There is no completely satisfactory definition of contaminated land. In simple terms all land that contains substances above their natural concentration could be said to be contaminated.
Protest against the proposal has been widespread, intense and well informed. I start by giving the Minister an example from the Council for the Protection of Rural England. In its view:
We do not accept that the risk inherent in the use of this site is acceptable. Landfill sites produce considerable quantities of

leachate. While we accept that the quantities of leachate leaking into the underlying chalk"—
it is chalk that we are talking about here—
may be virtually nil under perfect conditions, however, a failure of the containment system would alter that situation. It is clear from the literature and the experience of landfill operators that leachate generation is likely to continue over a very long period, even up to 70"—

Its being Ten o'clock, the motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put.

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Kirkhope]

Mr. Walden: I shall resume in the middle of the quotation, if I may:
It is clear from the literature and the experience of landfill operators that leachate generation is likely to continue over a very long period, even up to 70 or 100 years. Such a lengthy time span could provide a considerable challenge to the integrity of the containment system.
That is the view of the CPRE.
Next, let me quote from the view of the Dacorum Environmental Forum, with which my hon. Friend the Member for Hertfordshire, West will be familiar:
The Quarry sides have been carefully contoured during excavation to leave a naturalistic outline, on the basis that restoration would eventually take place at the worked-out level. This was assumed from the outset when quarrying was first permitted here in 1947, when the company was advised by the distinguished landscape architect (Sir) Geoffrey Jellicoe. There is no need to fill the Quarry in order to restore the land, as the exposed chalk can quickly regenerate as downland with minimal assistance. Landfill should not be regarded as a means of restoration but as an activity to be considered on its own merits; Pitstone Hill 'restored' to its approximate original contours is not necessarily better than Pitstone Hill restored with different contours, especially if the means of achieving the original outline is unacceptable on other grounds.
That seems to me an important and sophisticated rebuttal of what might otherwise be an obvious objection to the objectors—that filling in a quarry in the long term would be good for the environment.
Next, I shall quote yet another highly informed group of people—the Chiltern Society, whose views, as my right hon. Friend the Minister will agree when I have quoted them, cannot be regarded as amateur. I shall quote from the passage about gas and leachate:
Intricate systems are proposed requiring methane flaring and pumping and storage construction adjacent to the B488, and to operate over a minimum of 20 and probably 50 years. The layout of the buildings compound is clumsy and the design of the buildings crude. These will be prominent in the view from the Ridgeway Path and Ivinghoe Hills and the proposed tree planting will do little to mitigate the effect. The vents of the gas extraction system will be discordant with the proposed contours and downland vegetation. It is not clear from documentation what form the vents will take or how high they will protrude from the ground, but they will be obtrusive. The sight, noise and smell of these operations, which cannot be screened from scarp slopes, will be intolerable. More fundamentally current geological opinion is that it is inevitable that a landfill such as that proposed will eventually contaminate/pollute the groundwater resource whether in 5, 10, 50 or more years from completion.
Finally, but not least, I have an objection from the Dunstable and District Boat Club. I emphasise to the Minister that it is an area of outstanding natural beauty, which people like to visit. Local people like to boat there. There are canals, and other people like to come and enjoy that facility. The boat club was formed more than 30 years ago, based on the Grand Union canal at Pitstone, has a membership of 80 people and their families, and has always taken an interest in local matters. Its members come from Leighton Buzzard, Luton, Dunstable, Eaton Bray,


Marsworth, Tring, Aylesbury, St. Albans and many other places. Here is another group of local people who are rightly and exceedingly concerned about what is proposed.
I have also had representations from the Beacon Villages Society, to the same broad effect. Perhaps the most heartfelt protest comes from Mrs. Cato, clerk to the parish council. She writes to tell me that the village has suffered the side effects of the cement works—dust, smell, traffic—for 50 years:
For two and a half years Pitstone residents have experienced, many for the first time in their lives"—
since the cement works were discontinued—
a normal rural atmosphere. Pitstone parish council considers that the dumping of rubbish in this quarry would be a blight on the neighbourhood. Just imagine the feelings of those villagers: if someone is banging your head against a wall, the relief when they stop is considerable. If they then start again, the pain is all the greater.
I hesitate to anticipate the Minister's speech, but naturally I am going to, anyway. I suspect that he will tell me that the proposals must go through the usual planning hoops, and I understand that, although I shall have more to say about it later. He may also tell me that the Environmental Protection Act 1990 did much to strengthen controls over the running of rubbish sites, and that the Government deserve credit for that.
The point, however, is that my constituents do not want 500,000 tonnes of rubbish on their doorsteps, however well managed the dumping may be. That brings me to my central point: a mass consumer society in one of the most densely populated countries in the world will always have problems with waste disposal. I understand that the Government are looking at possible ways of making incineration and recycling more attractive; but I greatly doubt whether anything will be done in time to save my constituents or the area of outstanding natural beauty in the Chiltern hills.
In this time of rethinking and of transition, as we look at new ways to minimise environmental damage, what must surely guide Government policy is a determination not to let new landfill sites which will blight people's lives for decades slip through the net. In particular, it should be a rule of thumb that no new landfill sites should be allowed close to inhabited areas. I proposed that in the environment debate of 1990, but it was not accepted.
Since then, the urgency has grown, as the Pitstone proposal shows. What future is there in shifting rubbish from one inhabited area and dumping it in another? We might as well leave it in the city centres and landfill the parks, because the area of outstanding natural beauty in the Chilterns is the local people's park, to which visitors are welcome. A massive dump there would scar not just the landscape but the villagers' lives for decades to come.
For 50 or more years, these people have put up with a cement works; now the people of Pitstone and the surrounding area have earned some environmental respite. For these and many other reasons, I ask the Minister to call in this application, for which request I know that I have the support of my hon. Friend the Member for Hertfordshire, West (Mr. Jones).

The Minister for Housing, Inner Cities and Construction (Sir George Young): I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham (Mr. Walden) on securing the debate, and on representing so vividly the wholly understandable fears of his constituents.
Waste management is of great concern to my Department. I also know that my hon. Friend's remarks are of great interest to our hon. Friend the Member for Hertfordshire, West (Mr. Jones), whom I see in his place. Part of the proposed landfill site is in his constituency.
My hon. Friend began by describing the proposals that have been put to the Buckinghamshire and Hertfordshire county councils as waste planning authorities. They include a railhead, a container handling area and haul road, and the restoration of about 125 acres of chalk quarry by landfilling, mainly with household waste.
Part of the site lies within the metropolitan green belt and in the Chilterns area of outstanding natural beauty. The county council has sent us a copy of the application and of the developers' environmental appraisal, as the EC regulations on environmental assessment demand. A dozen or so local residents have written to us, but I suspect that most of those who recently attended my hon. Friend's public meeting are evidently saving their fire for the parties directly concerned.
Of course, the Department of the Environment may be directly concerned at some future date. My hon. Friend the Member for Hertfordshire, West has already asked my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State to confirm that he will call in the application for his own decision. My hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham has now reinforced that request by asking again for the application to be called in. I have taken on board all the points that my hon. Friend has made this evening, and will consider the case for intervention as we would any other. At this stage, I suspect that my hon. Friend knows that I cannot say anything more.
Waste is an emotive subject. None of us likes it and the Government would like to see less of it. We would prefer to see it reduced at source—for example, less packaging where it serves no useful purpose. Then we want to encourage different ways of re-using or recycling it. Safe disposal is the last option, not the first. The Government will continue to fund research, advice and pilot projects for cutting down the amount of waste that has to be disposed of. Businesses, the waste industry and individual households can all contribute.
In that sense, as my hon. Friend pointed out, we are all polluters, and many of the answers lie in our own hands. But initiatives to encourage reduction, re-use, recycling or energy recovery will never be able to deal with all our waste. There will continue to be a need for facilities for final disposal at landfill sites.
The Government's objective is to minimise pollution at such sites and prevent harm to the environment. Landfill is not inconsistent with sustainability if it is properly managed and controlled. Landfill sites have often been developed in the holes, or voids, as the technical term is, that are left by mineral workings. In the longer term, the restoration of old mineral workings can produce a pleasanter environment for everyone to enjoy.
In those cases where planning permission is given for landfill operations, the planning authority will often want to impose conditions or obligations. The phasing of tipping and restoration work, the hours of operation, the standards


and specification for restoring the site can all be controlled. In that way, much can be done to reduce the impact on local people. Of course, landfill operations are also subject to legislation on the control of pollution. As my hon. Friend pointed out, we have fairly recently introduced an enhanced system of waste management licensing, which provides rigorous controls over pollution from landfill sites and other waste facilities.
But with all those safeguards, it remains the case, as my hon. Friend said, that landfill sites are not the most popular of neighbours. Where then should they go? The Government support the proximity principle, under which waste should be disposed of or otherwise managed close to the point where it is generated. That tends to create a more responsible and therefore sustainable approach to generating waste. It should also limit pollution from transport.
Where waste cannot be disposed of reasonably close to its source, the use of rail or water transport is desirable if it reduces the overall environmental impact and would be economically feasible.

Mr. Robert B. Jones: Is my right hon. Friend aware that a railway siding leads into the site which, according to the application, it is not proposed to use? That seems strange.

Sir George Young: My hon. Friend is right to point out that close to the site there is a railway line, and I understand that part of the application is for a railhead. Those are the sort of relevant factors about which, in the first instance, Buckingham county council will want to make inquiries.
On the time scale, which may be of interest to my hon. Friends, the Department would usually begin to take a decision on that round about August or September. Much depends on whether the local planning authority takes the view that this is a departure from the structure plan and, if it is, whether it wishes to support it. That is the sort of dialogue that needs to take place in the short term before my Department takes a decision on whether to call it in.
On the question of proximity, there is no fixed definition, and it will vary according to the circumstances. But it should result in most of our waste being disposed of in the region where it is generated. Movement across regional boundaries is not prevented, and may make good sense in some areas, but each region should expect to provide sufficient facilities to treat or dispose of all its waste.
Suitable disposal sites in the south-east are not evenly spread. Availability in the London area is particularly limited, while some surrounding counties, of which Buckinghamshire is one, have geological conditions particularly suited to landfill. My Department's regional planning guidance recognises that those areas can be used to meet regional needs.
My hon. Friend referred to the prospect that waste from developed countries such as France and Germany might end up being landfilled in the United Kingdom. The Government hold firmly to the view, which I am sure my hon. Friend endorses, that countries that have or should be capable of acquiring the capacity to deal with their own waste should not send it to the UK for final disposal.
As my hon. Friend the Member for South Ribble (Mr. Atkins) indicated in his statement on 15 June, in future the presumption will be that waste should not be imported for final disposal in this country. That accords with

Government policy of self-sufficiency in the final disposal of waste, and that principle is enshrined in the Basle convention and EC waste shipment regulations.
Provision for the management of home-grown waste must be planned—it will not just happen. County councils are the waste regulation authorities as well as the waste planning authorities. In that role, they are required to draw up waste disposal plans under the Environmental Protection Act 1990. Those plans cover the type, quantity and origin of waste to be disposed of in the plan area but they do not identify specific sites or criteria for new facilities.
That matter is for the land use planning system, which aims to secure the most efficient and effective use of land in the public interest. That system is led by the development plan. Those plans should provide the framework for the development and use of land in an area. They should reflect local choices but also take on board national and regional policies.

Mr. Walden: I referred to my previous Adjournment debates on roads and gravel pits in my constituency. Slightly to my surprise, the roads proposal was withdrawn. I presumed that a lot of strategic thinking had gone into it, but I discovered that one reason for that proposal being withdrawn was that those concerned wanted to do some strategic thinking. I was gratified by the withdrawal, but surprised to learn that strategic thinking came after the strategic decision.
More or less the same thing occurred in respect of a gravel pit project, which I was told was part of a necessary future plan drawn up by the council, county council, industry and Government. It was found that the future demand for gravel had been grossly overestimated, so the project did not proceed.
I have enormous confidence in my hon. Friend personally, but I am a little less confident in future planning on the grand scale—particularly having lived some of my life in communist countries. Has the Department of the Environment really thought through future demand for landfill sites? I heard my hon. Friend refer to Buckinghamshire as a rather favoured area for that sort of disposal.

Sir George Young: I am grateful for my hon. Friend's expression of confidence in my judgment. I am sure that there are people in Buckinghamshire county council who take the same objective approach. I tried to describe Government policy in general terms—it is to reduce the volume of waste generated using a whole range of measures. Ultimately, we rely on planning authorities—county councils, in this instance—to identify specific sites or criteria for new facilities. It is a land use planning matter, and those authorities are best placed to identify those parts of their counties that are best suited for that function.
The Department has an overall role, which my hon. Friend invited me to use, in calling in plans. That is an option, but by and large we prefer to let the planning system be run by local people. We have a devolved planning system, and the presumption is that it should work. There is a safety valve in the ability to call in projects if they raise matters of national or regional importance or are departures.
My Department will closely monitor between now and September the further inquiries made by the county


council, whether it takes the view that the proposal is a departure, makes any request to the Department and other relevant factors.
There must be strong reasons for taking a planning decision away from the local authority. My hon. Friend spoke of his experiences under totalitarian regimes. One feature of such regimes is that they tend to be rather centralist, and we want to avoid that if possible.
I think that decisions of this kind should be made at local level, because in total they affect every aspect of local life. As I said, the Secretary of State's powers to call in applications for his own decision are used somewhat selectively, usually because a case raises issues of more than local importance.
My hon. Friend has made clear his view that new rubbish dumps—to use his phrase—should never be created near inhabited areas. Nearness to housing and other developments, and the impact on the quality of life of local people, are considerations that the planning authority may wish to take into account; but each case for new or extended waste disposal facilities should be considered on its merits within the development plan context.
It may be necessary for the planning authority to balance the shorter-term impact on local communities with any projected benefits. There are many factors to take into

account, including the geology and hydro-geology of the site, how access would be gained, the nature of the landscape and the length of the project.

Mr. Walden: My right hon. Friend referred to the shorter term. When the subject arose at a local meeting, a rather excited participant responded to the information that the longer-term benefits would be seen after 20 years or more by saying that, in the longer term, we are all dead.

Sir George Young: I have read accounts of that lively public meeting, which my hon. Friend attended. I understand that representatives of the applicant considered it in their interests not to attend. Of course, we must balance the short to medium-term impact on local communities with any projected benefits.
There are no simple answers to the problem of coping with waste. The community as a whole needs these facilities, but individual communities do not want them close at hand. I am sure that my hon. Friend's constituents are already making their views known to Buckinghamshire county council. As I said at the beginning, we will keep in close touch with progress; we have noted what my hon. Friend said, we have the representations from my hon. Friend the Member for Hertfordshire, West, and my Department stands ready to intervene if such a course is justified.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at twenty-two minutes past Ten o'clock